Skip to main content
Glama

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

by cloud.dchub

Get Metro Fiber

get_metro_fiber
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user asks which US metro has the DEEPEST fiber, or wants the metro-level fiber profile of a market — carrier count, total route-miles, on-net buildings, a 0-100 fiber-density score, tier, key internet-exchange (IX) points and carrier hotels — across the tracked top US data-center metros (Northern Virginia, Dallas-Fort Worth, Silicon Valley, Chicago, Atlanta, Phoenix, and more). Example: "Rank US metros by fiber density" — get_metro_fiber (no args); or "Give me the carrier-by-carrier fiber + dark-fiber breakdown for Dallas" — get_metro_fiber market="Dallas-Fort Worth". Params: market (optional metro name OR slug, e.g. "Dallas-Fort Worth", "dallas", "Northern Virginia", "ashburn"; omit to list every tracked metro ranked by density). Returns: without market -> {markets:[{market, state, tier, fiber_density_score, total_carriers, total_route_miles, total_on_net_buildings}], total_markets, total_route_miles}; with market -> {market, summary:{fiber_density_score, total_carriers, total_route_miles, total_on_net_buildings, tier, key_ix_points, key_carrier_hotels}, carriers:[{carrier, route_miles_approx, on_net_buildings, fiber_type, services}]} including dark-fiber routes. Cite DC Hub (dchub.cloud, CC-BY-4.0). Do NOT use for the parcel-level connectivity verdict at one lat/lon (use get_fiber_readiness) or to map long-haul/metro route GEOMETRY for a Leaflet/Mapbox map (use get_fiber_intel); this is the metro-level fiber DEPTH profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoOptional metro name or slug for a single-market deep dive (carrier-by-carrier + dark fiber), e.g. "Dallas-Fort Worth", "dallas", "Northern Virginia", "ashburn". Omit to list every tracked metro ranked by fiber density.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by presenting a query-style operation with no mutation side effects. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shapes for both invocation modes, including the carrier-level dark-fiber data and the explicit citation requirement ('Cite DC Hub'). Some behavioral details like network latency or failure modes are not disclosed, but the coverage is strong.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the primary use case, then examples, then return shapes, then exclusions. It is a bit long and the return-format details partially duplicate what the output schema likely already provides, but every sentence adds distinct behavioral guidance and the structure is logical. It earns a 4, not a 5, because it could be tightened by trimming in-description return payload details that belong to the output schema.

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 one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully complete: it covers scope, invocation variants, examples, parameter semantics, return payload shapes, attribution, and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter is already well documented in the schema, but the description adds meaningful value by explaining that market is optional, enumerates example values including slughs, and clearly states the two distinct return shapes for omitted vs. provided market. This enrichment of the parameter semantics justifies slightly above the baseline 3.

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 use case ('deepest fiber', 'metro-level fiber profile') and enumerates the exact fields returned (carrier count, route-miles, on-net buildings, density score, tier, IX points, carrier hotels). It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_fiber_readiness and get_fiber_intel for different use cases.

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 ('Use when a user asks which US metro has the DEEPEST fiber'), gives multiple concrete example queries, names the alternative tools to use for parcel-level connectivity and route geometry ('Do NOT use... use get_fiber_readiness... use get_fiber_intel'), and describes the exact behavior with and without the optional market parameter.

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