Skip to main content
Glama

Teardrop

by dev.teardrop.api

Resolve Ens

resolve_ens
Read-only

Resolve an ENS name (e.g. 'vitalik.eth') to an Ethereum address, or pass an Ethereum address for reverse lookup to its primary ENS name. Also returns the avatar text record when available. Mainnet only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name (e.g. 'vitalik.eth') to resolve to an address, or an Ethereum address (0x…) for reverse lookup to a primary ENS name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
errorNo
avatarNo
addressYes
resolvedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / title
      Added value: +"Name"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"mcp_resolve_ensArguments"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing additional behavior: reverse lookup capability, avatar text record availability, and the mainnet-only restriction. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond basic safety hints, but stops short of describing edge cases like unregistered names or error handling.

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, each with clear purpose. The core resolution is stated first, followed by the avatar addition and network constraint. No fluff or repetition; it is both concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the input formats (name/address), the output direction (address/primary name), the avatar record, and the network (mainnet). The presence of an output schema means return value details are already provided, so the description is fully sufficient.

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%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description essentially restates the same info ('ENS name' or 'Ethereum address') without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') and clearly defines the resource (ENS names/addresses). It covers both forward and reverse resolution, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like balance checkers and transaction fetchers. The mention of avatar records and mainnet-only adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 implies its use case by explaining exactly what it does, and the 'Mainnet only' constraint provides a clear exclusion. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' statement or mention of alternatives, though no sibling tool directly overlaps with ENS resolution.

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

All Teardrop toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct data sources, but several near-duplicates exist: get_token_approvals/get_wallet_approvals, get_defi_positions/get_wallet_positions, and get_wallet_portfolio/get_eth_balance. The descriptions do cross-reference and clarify the differences, so an agent can disambiguate with effort, but names alone are not enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant get_<noun> pattern is clear and nearly all names use lowercase snake_case with verb-first conventions. A few tools like calculate, record_predictions, http_fetch, and web_search break the get_ pattern, but the overall style remains predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server, even for a broad DeFi/onchain analytics domain. The count is inflated by generic utilities such as calculate, count_text_stats, web_search, and http_fetch, plus multiple overlapping data-retrieval endpoints, making the surface hard to scan.

Completeness4/5

The set covers an unusually wide range of domain operations: prices, balances, portfolio/positions, approvals, yields, TVL, DEX quotes/volume, transactions, blocks, gas, ENS, contract reads, and risk assessments. It is view-only by design, so missing write/transaction tools is acceptable; minor gaps like address-based token pricing or transaction simulation are workaround-able.

Resources