Skip to main content
Glama

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

Platform Health

get_backup_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Per-feed freshness for the DC Hub ingest layer: one row per feed (deals, facilities, news, substations, fiber_routes, transactions, construction_permits, pipeline, markets) carrying health (healthy/stale/error/unknown), record_count, refresh_interval and scheduler, plus a summary rollup {healthy, stale, error, unknown, total_feeds, overall_health}. Read the health of each row before trusting a figure drawn from it — a feed reporting "unknown" has NOT been measured, which is not the same as healthy. Answers "are any of your sources stale right now". Try: get_backup_status. Scope is exactly what /api/health/data-freshness serves: ingest-feed freshness, nothing wider. Do NOT use for the freshness of one dataset (use get_changes); this is ingest health, not content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: a feed reporting 'unknown' has NOT been measured, which is not the same as healthy, and stale/error feeds should not be trusted blindly. It also clarifies the exact scope boundary to /api/health/data-freshness, which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is detailed and front-loaded with the core value proposition, but slightly redundant in the closing section: 'nothing wider' and 'this is ingest health, not content' convey similar scope exclusions. Minor over-explanation, but every sentence contributes meaningful operational context otherwise.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what fields are returned, what health values mean, how to interpret 'unknown', and the precise scope. There is no missing information an agent would need to decide whether to call this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to add, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and interpretation rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 specific verb and resource: per-feed freshness for the DC Hub ingest layer, with exact feeds and a summary rollup. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_changes by saying this is ingest health, not content freshness. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('are any of your sources stale right now') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use for the freshness of one dataset (use get_changes)'). It also gives operational guidance, such as reading each row's health before trusting figures drawn from it. This is model-example-level usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

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.