Skip to main content
Glama

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

by cloud.dchub

Find Alternative Facilities

find_alternatives
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user likes ONE specific facility and wants similar nearby options to consider instead ("what else looks like this?"). Example: "Find alternatives to the Ashburn QTS campus for about 50MW." — find_alternatives facility_id=. Params: facility_id or name (the target, required); optional capacity_mw, radius_km, limit. Returns: ranked alternatives, each with similarity_score, match_reasons, and key_differences versus the target. Do NOT use to score one site (use score_facility or analyze_site) or to compare a known short-list head-to-head (use compare_sites); this DISCOVERS candidates from a single seed facility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return (1-500; default varies by tool)
match_onNoOptional similarity dimension to weight, e.g. capacity, operator, fiber, market
radius_kmNoSearch radius in km for candidate alternatives around the seed facility
facility_idYesThe seed facility id/slug (required) to find alternatives to, from a prior search result — there is no `name` param; an undeclared key is silently stripped
exclude_operatorNoIf true, exclude facilities from the same operator as the seed

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by describing the return shape (ranked alternatives with similarity_score, match_reasons, and key_differences) and clarifying that this tool discovers candidates from a single seed. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does introduce some confusion about accepted parameters.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose and a concrete example, followed by returns and exclusions. However, the parameter enumeration duplicates schema content and is partly inaccurate, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 a 100%-covered input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides strong contextual guidance: when to use, when not to use, a realistic example, and the key output differences. The main completeness gap is the stale/incorrect parameter summary, but the schema covers the authoritative parameter details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's parameter summary is actively misleading: it advertises 'facility_id or name' and 'capacity_mw', while the schema explicitly says there is no `name` param and does not include `capacity_mw`. It also omits `match_on` and `exclude_operator`. This adds misinformation rather than useful meaning 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 states a precise use case: when a user likes one specific facility and wants similar nearby alternatives. It gives a concrete example and explicitly distinguishes itself from scoring and comparison siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

It says exactly when to use the tool ('Use when a user likes ONE specific facility') and when not to use it, naming the alternatives: score_facility/analyze_site for scoring one site and compare_sites for head-to-head comparison. The 'Do NOT use' guidance is explicit and actionable.

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