thru-mcp-server

Resolve name service entry

resolve_name

Read-only

Resolve a Thru name service entry to its on-chain account. Accepts a root name or subdomain.root, derives the program address, and returns the owner and stored records.

Instructions

Resolve a Thru name service entry to its on-chain account. Accepts a root registrar name or a subdomain.root pair, derives the program address and decodes the account, returning the owner and any stored records.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name to resolve. Either a root registrar (`megaelena`) or a subdomain (`wagmiolga.megaelena`).
`record`	No	Optional record key to read from a resolved domain (for example `address`). Ignored for root registrars.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds behavioral detail: deriving the program address, decoding the account, and returning owner and records. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover error cases.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without fluff. Excellent structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple resolver with no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and outputs. It lacks explicit error cases or detailed return format, but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and rich schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both 'name' and 'record' including examples. The description's mention of the input forms is redundant. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'Thru name service entry', and explains the transformation to an on-chain account with owner and records. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account, which fetch by address.

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 context is clear: use when you have a name to resolve. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., get_account for direct addresses), so it falls short of a full 5.

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

Deploy Server