Skip to main content
Glama

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

by cloud.dchub

Get Fiber Readiness

get_fiber_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you need the FIBER-READINESS / connectivity verdict for ONE parcel or site (lat/lon): near-net distance to a carrier-served facility, how many distinct fiber carriers are reachable, and whether there is single-carrier risk (no path diversity). This is the parcel connectivity answer engineering site-selectors screen on. Example: "Is this Loudoun County parcel fiber-ready and how many carriers can serve it?" — get_fiber_readiness lat=39.04 lon=-77.48 radius_km=50. Params: lat (-90..90, required), lon (-180..180, required), radius_km (search radius in km, default 50, range 5-200). Returns: {score 0-100 (null when not scored — see carrier_data_coverage), near_net_bucket ("on-net"|"near-net"|"acceptable"|"build-required"|"unknown"), nearest_carrier_km, carrier_count, top_carriers:[{carrier, distance_km}], single_carrier_risk (bool, null when not scored), fiber_coverage_km, verdict_short, carrier_data_coverage ("confirmed"|"none_in_region")}. IMPORTANT — "unknown" is NOT "bad": carrier presence comes from PeeringDB, which is global but thin outside dense US/EU metros, so DC Hub distinguishes "no carrier serves this point" from "PeeringDB does not describe this region". When carrier_data_coverage is "none_in_region" the bucket is "unknown", score/single_carrier_risk are null, and NOTHING about the site fiber has been measured — do not report it as greenfield, unserved, or a build-required site. Only carrier_data_coverage "confirmed" with carrier_count 0 means a fiber build is genuinely required. Do NOT use to map carrier ROUTES between metros (use get_fiber_intel) or for a full multi-factor site suitability score (use analyze_site).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoSite latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90, required), e.g. 39.04
lngNoAlias for lon — either name works
lonNoSite longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180, required), e.g. -77.48
latitudeNoAlias for lat — either name works
longitudeNoAlias for lon — either name works
radius_kmNoSearch radius in km for reachable fiber carriers (default 50, range 5-200)

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already carrying readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds critical behavioral context: the PeeringDB data source, the semantic distinction between 'unknown' and 'build-required', null behavior for score/single_carrier_risk, and a warning not to treat 'none_in_region' as unserved. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents a likely misinterpretation.

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?

The definition is long but every sentence earns its place: use-case, example, parameter summary, return shape, and a critical caveat on interpreting 'unknown'. The warning is front-loaded toward the end after the necessary context, and the structure separates the core purpose from the interpretive nuance.

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 complex null semantics and a coverage distinction, the description covers input usage, output fields, enums, null rules, and alternatives. The existing output schema handles raw return shapes, and the description supplies the missing interpretation layer—especially the 'unknown is not bad' rule—making it effectively complete for agent 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%, and the schema already documents each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly declaring lat/lon as required (the schema has no required list), giving a full example invocation, and restating radius default/range in human terms, which reinforces but does not radically extend 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: get the FIBER-READINESS / connectivity verdict for ONE parcel or site, and enumerates the core outputs (near-net distance, carrier count, single-carrier risk). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_fiber_intel (routes between metros) and analyze_site (multi-factor suitability), so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schemas.

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 provides a clear 'Use when' trigger—needing the parcel connectivity verdict for a single lat/lon site—and an explicit 'Do NOT use' clause naming get_fiber_intel for metro route mapping and analyze_site for full suitability scoring. Example usage and parameter guidance reinforce the selection criteria.

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