NameWhisper MCP Server

get_primary_name

Check the primary ENS name for a wallet address. Verifies reverse and forward resolution to confirm the name points back, enabling debugging of missing ENS records.

Instructions

Check what primary ENS name is set for a wallet address (reverse resolution).

Returns the ENS name that this address resolves to, or null if no primary name is set.

This verifies both directions:

Reverse: address → name (the reverse record)
Forward: name → address (confirms the name actually points back to this wallet)

If either direction is missing, the primary name won't resolve. Use this to:

Verify a primary name was set correctly after set_primary_name
Check if a wallet has any primary name configured
Debug why a primary name isn't showing up (missing ETH address record)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "walletAddress": "<walletAddress>"
    },
    "name": "get_primary_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`walletAddress`	Yes	Ethereum wallet address (0x...) to check reverse resolution for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns null when no primary name is set, verifies both reverse and forward resolution, and explains why resolution may fail (missing ETH address record). This is rich, accurate context beyond what the schema offers.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is slightly longer than the bare minimum but well-structured with a clear opening, a detailed explanation of the verification logic, and a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the first two sentences could be considered overlapping.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the return value (ENS name or null), the behavior (both-direction verification), edge cases (missing forward record), and specific use cases, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already says 'Ethereum wallet address (0x...) to check reverse resolution for'. The main description adds value by explaining how the address is used in the two-way verification, but it does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking the primary ENS name for a wallet address via reverse resolution. It specifies the verb 'check', the resource 'wallet address', and the method (reverse resolution), while also distinguishing itself from related tools like set_primary_name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides three explicit use cases (verify after set_primary_name, check configuration, debug missing primary name) and explains the bidirectional verification requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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