Skip to main content
Glama
kukapay

ens-mcp

by kukapay
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

ENS MCP Server

An MCP server that resolves, analyzes, and contextualizes ENS domain activity to empower Web3 agents with human-readable identity insights.

GitHub License Python Version Status

Features

  • Resolve ENS Names: Map ENS domains (e.g., vitalik.eth) to Ethereum addresses.

  • Detailed Domain Information: Fetch comprehensive domain data, including address, owner, registrant, expiry, registration, wrapped domain, and resolver details.

  • Domain Event History: Retrieve events like transfers, resolver changes, and name wrapping, with relevant addresses and timestamps.

Related MCP server: dns-mcp

Requirements

  • Python 3.10 or higher

  • uv (recommended for dependency management)

  • A valid API key for The Graph.

Installation

  1. Clone the Repository:

    git clone https://github.com/kukapay/ens-mcp.git
cd ens-mcp

  2. Install Dependencies:

    uv sync

  3. Installing to Claude Desktop:

    Install the server as a Claude Desktop application:

    uv run mcp install main.py --name "ens-mcp"

    Configuration file as a reference:

    {
   "mcpServers": {
       "ens-mcp": {
           "command": "uv",
           "args": [ "--directory", "/path/to/ens-mcp", "run", "main.py" ],
           "env": { "THEGRAPH_API_KEY": "the_graph_api_key"}               
       }
   }
}

    Replace /path/to/ens-mcp with your actual installation path, and the_graph_api_key with your API key from The Graph.

Usage

Tools

The server provides three MCP tools:

  1. resolve_ens_name(domain: str) -> str

    Resolves an ENS domain to its Ethereum address.

    • Input: ENS domain (e.g., vitalik.eth)

    • Output: Ethereum address (e.g., 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045) or "None"

    Example:

    resolve_ens_name("vitalik.eth") -> "0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045"

  2. get_domain_details(domain: str) -> str

    Fetches detailed information about an ENS domain, including its address.

    • Input: ENS domain

    • Output: Formatted string with domain details (address, owner, registrant, expiry, etc.)

    Example Output:

    ENS Domain: vitalik.eth
Address: 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045
Label Name: vitalik
Label Hash: 0x...
Subdomain Count: 5
Owner: 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045
Registrant: 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045
Wrapped Owner: None
Expiry Date: 2025-10-31 00:00:00
TTL: 0 seconds
Is Migrated: true
Created At: 2017-05-04 12:00:00
Registration: Registration Date: 2017-05-04 12:00:00
Registration Expiry: 2025-10-31 00:00:00
Registration Cost: 1000000000000000 Wei
Registrant: 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045
Wrapped Domain: Not Wrapped
Resolver: Resolver Address: 0x4976fb03C32e5B8cfe2b6cCB31c09Ba78EBaBa41
Content Hash: None
Text Records: email, url

  3. get_domain_events(domain: str) -> str

    Retrieves events associated with an ENS domain.

    • Input: ENS domain

    • Output: Formatted string listing events (e.g., transfers, resolver changes)

    Example Output:

    Event: Transfer
Block Number: 1234567
Transaction ID: 0x...
New Owner: 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045

Event: NewResolver
Block Number: 1234568
Transaction ID: 0x...
Resolver Address: 0x4976fb03C32e5B8cfe2b6cCB31c09Ba78EBaBa41
Resolver Addr: 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License. See the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

3 tools
get_domain_detailsC

Fetch detailed information for an ENS domain, including its address.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 mentions fetching detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe critical traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid domains), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key output, making it easy to parse and understand 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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases or response structure, nor does it provide parameter details. While concise, it omits necessary context for effective tool invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one undocumented parameter ('domain'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., format like 'example.eth', validation rules, or examples). This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed information for an ENS domain'), including the key output ('including its address'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_domain_events' (which likely focuses on events) and 'resolve_ens_name' (which might resolve names to addresses without detailed info). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the text, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'resolve_ens_name'. It lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone. This minimal guidance is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

get_domain_eventsC

Retrieve events associated with an ENS domain.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Retrieve events' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens on invalid domains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving events likely involves data processing), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what events are returned, their structure, or error handling. For a tool with these gaps, more context is needed to be fully usable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'domain' but doesn't explain its format (e.g., ENS name like 'example.eth'), validation rules, or examples. With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving semantics unclear.

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 action ('Retrieve') and target ('events associated with an ENS domain'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_domain_details' (which likely returns static data) and 'resolve_ens_name' (which resolves names to addresses). However, it doesn't specify what types of events (e.g., transfers, registrations) or their format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving domain events, but doesn't clarify scenarios (e.g., audit trails, activity monitoring) or prerequisites. Without context, users might not know when this is preferred over 'get_domain_details' for domain information.

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

resolve_ens_nameA

Resolve an ENS name to its Ethereum address.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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. It states the basic function but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid names), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness in usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter details, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'domain' undocumented. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'domain' is an 'ENS name', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Domain' title. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., '.eth' suffix) or examples.

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 action ('Resolve') and resource ('ENS name') with the outcome ('to its Ethereum address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domain_details' and 'get_domain_events' by focusing on address resolution rather than general details or event history.

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 like 'get_domain_details' or 'get_domain_events'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the ENS name must be registered or valid, and does not mention any exclusions or specific use cases.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_domain_details retrieves comprehensive domain information, get_domain_events focuses on event history, and resolve_ens_name performs a specific address resolution. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_domain_details, get_domain_events, resolve_ens_name), using snake_case throughout. The verbs 'get' and 'resolve' are appropriately descriptive and maintain a predictable structure.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the set feels somewhat thin for an ENS domain management server. While the tools cover key read operations, the scope could benefit from additional tools for broader ENS interactions, such as registration or ownership updates, to better support agent workflows.

Completeness3/5

The tools provide good read coverage for ENS domains (details, events, resolution), but there are notable gaps for write operations like registering, updating, or transferring domains. This limits the server's ability to handle full domain lifecycle management, though agents can work with the available read functions.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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/kukapay/ens-mcp'

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