Skip to main content
Glama

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

by cloud.dchub

Water Risk

get_water_risk
Read-onlyIdempotent

FRONT DOOR CHECK — if you need a SITE VERDICT spanning grid + fiber + water + tax + climate, call execute_plan(intent="<the user's question, unchanged>") rather than hand-chaining this with its siblings. If you want the WATER factor on its own, get_water_risk IS the right call — one round trip, free tier, no planner overhead. Use when scoring a US site for cooling-water sustainability — the water-risk factor engineering site-selectors screen before committing to evaporative cooling. Example: "Is this Phoenix parcel water-constrained for a 100MW build?" — get_water_risk lat=33.45 lon=-112.07 (or get_water_risk state=AZ / county=Maricopa). Params: ONE of lat+lon (-90..90 / -180..180), state (2-letter US), or county; lat/lon gives the most precise read. Returns: {water_stress_score (0-100, higher=worse), drought_category (D0-D4), outlook_12mo, cooling_water_assessment, source}. Joined to USGS water-stress + US Drought Monitor. Free tier. Do NOT use for nearby physical infrastructure (use get_infrastructure) or a combined multi-factor site verdict spanning grid+fiber+water+tax+climate (use analyze_site); this covers the WATER factor only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoSite latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90) for the most precise water-risk read, e.g. 33.45
lngNoAlias for lon — either name works
lonNoSite longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180), e.g. -112.07
stateNoUS state abbreviation as an alternative to lat/lon, e.g. AZ
latitudeNoAlias for lat — either name works
longitudeNoAlias for lon — either name works

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
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: 'one round trip, free tier, no planner overhead,' the exact return fields, data provenance ('USGS water-stress + US Drought Monitor'), and the precision trade-off of lat/lon vs state. Nothing contradicts 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 front-loaded with the most important routing decision and includes a clear example. It is dense and slightly repetitive ('free tier' appears twice), and the all-caps 'FRONT DOOR CHECK' adds emphasis but also length. Overall, every sentence adds value, but the paragraph is longer than strictly necessary.

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 multiple input modes, aliases, and many siblings, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, how to invoke with different parameter combinations, expected outputs (e.g., water_stress_score 0-100 with direction), data sources, exclusions, and cost behavior. Even with an output schema present, the description adds sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all 6 parameters. The description adds useful meaning like 'lat/lon gives the most precise read' and 'ONE of lat+lon, state, or county.' However, it lists 'county' as a valid parameter even though the input schema has no county field, which could lead an agent to attempt an invalid invocation.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Use when scoring a US site for cooling-water sustainability' and 'this covers the WATER factor only.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_infrastructure and analyze_site by explicitly delimiting scope, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit routing guidance: 'call execute_plan... rather than hand-chaining this with its siblings' for a combined verdict, and 'Do NOT use for nearby physical infrastructure (use get_infrastructure) or a combined multi-factor site verdict... (use analyze_site).' It also gives a concrete example and precise when-to-use conditions.

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