Skip to main content
Glama

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

by cloud.dchub

Get Facility Risk Delta

get_facility_risk_delta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user asks what has CHANGED in a facility's (or its market's) risk profile recently — "has this site gotten riskier lately?", "which way is this market moving?" — a temporal question static-trained models can't answer. Returns the REAL DCPI market-health delta (excess-power score change over the window, direction improving/worsening/flat) from DC Hub's history-preserving daily snapshots. INTEGRITY: only DCPI market-health has a short-term temporal series; the site-hazard dimensions (FEMA disaster / USGS seismic / NOAA climate / WRI water) are DECLARED static (they don't change week-to-week) with a pointer to the point-in-time tool — never a fabricated week-over-week delta; no snapshot history → coverage:unavailable. Params: facility_id (a discovered-facility id or slug) OR market (a market name/slug), since (e.g. "7d"/"30d", default 7d). Returns {facility, dcpi_market_health:{delta, now, direction, coverage}, static_dimensions{...}, summary}. For the current point-in-time risk (not the change) use get_composite_site_score / get_disaster_risk / get_climate_intel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoLook-back window, e.g. "7d" or "30d" (default 7d)
marketNoAlternatively, a market name or slug (e.g. "northern-virginia")
facility_idNoA DC Hub facility id or canonical slug to resolve the market context

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?

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: only DCPI market-health has a temporal series, site-hazard dimensions are declared static, and missing snapshot history yields coverage:unavailable. This prevents the agent from inventing week-over-week changes and clearly communicates the tool's limitations.

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 longer than average but earns its length: it front-loads the use case, then covers return shape, integrity constraints, and alternatives. It is dense but organized, though the capitalization and slightly wordy 'REAL DCPI' phrasing could be tightened.

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 tool with an output schema, 3 optional params, and extensive sibling context, the description is complete. It explains the temporal vs. static distinction, when results may be unavailable, what the response contains, and which sibling tools to use instead. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that facility_id and market are alternatives ('OR') and by giving the since window format and default. This helps the agent choose the right parameter combination even though each param is already documented.

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: returns the DCPI market-health delta (change over a window) for a facility or market. It clearly distinguishes this from point-in-time risk tools by emphasizing temporal change, and gives concrete example queries ('has this site gotten riskier lately?').

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user asks what has changed in a facility's or market's risk profile recently. It also names the alternatives for point-in-time risk (get_composite_site_score, get_disaster_risk, get_climate_intel), and warns against fabricating deltas for static dimensions.

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