Skip to main content
Glama

provider_get_ens_resolver

Retrieve the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) resolver for a specified ENS name using the MCP Crypto Wallet EVM, enabling blockchain address resolution and interaction.

Instructions

Get the ENS resolver for a name

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe ENS name

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the tool logic: retrieves the ENS resolver for the given name using the provider's getResolver method.
    export const getEnsResolverHandler = async (input: any): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        if (!input.name) {
          return createErrorResponse("ENS name is required");
        }
    
        const provider = getProvider();
        if (!provider) {
          return createErrorResponse("Provider is required to get ENS resolver, please set the provider URL");
        }
        // In ethers.js v5, getResolver might not be directly on the provider type
        // but it's available in the implementation
        const resolver = await (provider as any).getResolver(input.name);
    
        return createSuccessResponse(
        resolver ? `ENS resolver retrieved successfully
          Address: ${resolver.address}
          Name: ${resolver.name}
        ` : "No resolver found for this ENS name");
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Failed to get ENS resolver: ${(error as Error).message}`);
      }
    };
  • The input schema definition for the tool, specifying the required 'name' parameter.
    {
      name: "provider_get_ens_resolver",
      description: "Get the ENS resolver for a name",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          name: { type: "string", description: "The ENS name" }
        },
        required: ["name"]
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:597-597 (registration)
    The mapping of the tool name to its handler function in the central handlers dictionary.
    "provider_get_ens_resolver": getEnsResolverHandler,
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain how it behaves—e.g., whether it's read-only, requires network access, handles errors, or returns specific data formats. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of ENS operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'ENS resolver' is, what the return value might be (e.g., an address or contract), or how this differs from other ENS tools in the sibling list. For a tool in a blockchain context with no structured support, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as 'The ENS name'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ENS resolver for a name'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'provider_resolve_name' or 'provider_lookup_address', which might have overlapping ENS-related functionality, so it lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'provider_resolve_name' and 'provider_lookup_address' that might handle ENS resolution differently, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dcSpark/mcp-cryptowallet-evm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server