Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center Site Selection & Colocation: Electricity, Power Grid, Gas, Fiber

by cloud.dchub

Compare Sites

compare_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels and wants a side-by-side winner picker across power, gas, fiber, market & risk — with a recommended pick and the reason. Runs the analyze_site read on each parcel and ranks them by overall score. Example: "Compare a Phoenix parcel and an Ashburn parcel for a 50MW build — which wins and why?" — compare_sites locations="33.45,-112.07;39.04,-77.48" capacity_mw=50. Params: locations is a semicolon-separated list of "lat,lon" pairs (2-4 max); capacity_mw is the target load in MW (e.g. 50-500) and is forwarded to every site — each carries its own capacity_context; it does NOT move overall_score, so the winner is picked on location suitability, not on your requested load. Returns (full, paid): {sites:[{lat, lon, capacity_requested_mw, overall_score (0-100 composite), interpretation (verdict string, e.g. "Excellent site"), scores{power_infrastructure, gas_pipeline_access, fiber_connectivity, market_conditions, risk_resilience — each 0-100}, nearby{substations_50km, power_plants_80km, gas_pipelines_50km, facilities_100km, fiber_carriers_in_state, generation_capacity_mw, total_capacity_mw}, fiber{connectivity_score, carrier_count, nearest_carrier_km, near_net_bucket, single_carrier_risk, top_carriers[{carrier, distance_km}]}, power_cost, location}], winner:{lat, lon, overall_score, why}, decision_rationale, citation}. Each site carries the same shape analyze_site returns. compare_sites is a paid/Pro tool — the free tier returns a locked preview, not the comparison. Do NOT use for a single site (use analyze_site) or to rank entire markets (use rank_markets).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sitesNoAlternative to locations: an array of {lat, lon} (or {lat, lng}) objects, 2-4 sites
mpp_payNoAutonomous payment (Stripe MPP), step 1: set true to receive a signed $0.50 payment challenge for this call instead of the free preview. No money moves — a challenge is a price quote. Humans never set this, so it does not affect the normal free/trial funnel.
locationsNoSemicolon-separated list of 2-4 "lat,lon" pairs to compare, e.g. "33.45,-112.07;39.04,-77.48"
capacity_mwNoTarget power load for the build in megawatts (MW), e.g. 50 (typical 50-500)
mpp_credentialNoAutonomous payment (Stripe MPP), step 2: the Shared Payment Token you minted for challenges[0]. Set it here to pay $0.50 for this single call and receive the full result — no API key, no subscription, no human. One payment covers one call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quotaNoCaller quota state (remaining calls, tier) when available.
_entityNoPayload class discriminator (e.g. facility|market|iso_grid|queue_results|deal|report|response) — branch on this before parsing the rest.
citationNoMachine-readable citation: how to attribute DC Hub (dchub.cloud) for this payload. Normally an OBJECT {source, url, license, cite_as, retrieved_at}; a bare string is accepted and carries the attribution line itself.
provenanceNoCollection-level provenance block: {source, method, as_of, verification_counts, cite_url_template, license, cite_as}. Quote the verification level when citing.
_front_doorNoIn-band front-door hint (first workflow-entry tool of a session): call plan_query(intent) first for the ordered multi-step plan.
_return_loopNoSuggested next-session delta call (get_changes since=24h) so you pull only what changed.
site_evaluation_handoffNoPre-built follow-up calls (analyze_site / get_water_risk args) when the payload carries coordinates — an array of {tool, parameters, why} entries.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description carries less burden here. It adds real behavioral context: it runs analyze_site internally on each parcel, states the free tier returns a locked preview while paid returns full results, and clarifies that capacity_mw is forwarded but does not move overall_score, so the winner is picked on location suitability. Strong added transparency beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is long and dense, including a full return shape that overlaps with the output schema. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, but the return-shape enumeration is redundant given the output schema exists, and the MPP payment details are already in the schema. Every sentence doesn't earn its place; some could be trimmed without loss.

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?

Given the tool complexity (5 params, paid/free gating, internal delegation to analyze_site, output shape) the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists, so the detailed return-shape enumeration is unnecessary but not harmful. Covers constraints, exclusions, pricing, and behavior. Only minor gap: no explicit statement about error cases/edge conditions, but acceptable for a read-only comparison tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds useful semantics: locations format and 2-4 max, capacity_mw forwarded but not affecting overall_score, and the meanings of mpp_pay/mpp_credential are already explained in the schema. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the MPP params, but the forwarding nuance is a plus; still, the schema already carries the heavy lifting. A 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('compare'), resource ('candidate parcels'), and outcome ('side-by-side winner picker... ranked by overall score'). Explicitly differentiates from analyze_site and rank_markets by saying what it is not for. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and when to pick it over siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels... winner picker'), when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use for a single site (use analyze_site) or to rank entire markets (use rank_markets)'), plus a concrete example query. This is the gold standard for usage guidance.

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

All DC Hub — Data Center Site Selection & Colocation: Electricity, Power Grid, Gas, Fiber 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

With 85 tools, several families are heavily overlapping: semantic_search and search_intelligence are explicitly documented as the same retrieval with different call shapes, save_site and save_to_shortlist both persist sites, and list_saved_sites and get_shortlist both read saved sites. Additionally, site scoring is split across analyze_site, get_composite_site_score, score_facility, and rank_sites, making correct tool selection very difficult for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly readable, but conventions are mixed: many use get_* (get_facility, get_grid_intelligence), others use verb phrases (analyze_site, compare_isos, rank_markets), and some are bare noun phrases (ai_capacity_index, hyperscaler_deals, grid_transition_radar, site_selection_canvas). The search family alone uses search, search_facilities, semantic_search, and search_intelligence with no consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

85 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and above the 50+ threshold described as an extreme mismatch. Even with a wide domain like data-center siting, this many tools overwhelms agent context and makes selection costly.

Completeness4/5

The domain surface is exceptionally broad: siting, grid, gas, fiber, water, climate, tax, permitting, deals, news, facilities, saved shortlists, alerts, webhooks, key management, and research dossiers are all covered with connected workflows. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete or update for saved sites and no pause/resume for standing intents, but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources