Skip to main content
Glama

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

Rank Sites

rank_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints — the normalization contract that lets you compare sites across separate analyze_site calls WITHOUT dropping into code. Pass candidates you already enriched (each an object with lat/lng + metric fields like risk_resilience, water_stress, fiber_km — pull these from analyze_site + get_refined_queue and pass site_evaluation_handoff through untouched), hard constraints, and weighted objectives; get back entity=ranked_sites: top_k ranked with rank, objective_score, per-field normalized{} (0-100 relative to the set), and normalization_basis. objectives use SIGNED weights: +weight maximizes a field (e.g. risk_resilience:1), -weight minimizes it (e.g. water_stress:-0.6, fiber_km:-0.4). constraints are hard filters, fail-closed on a missing field. Use for "pick the best N sites under constraints"; for one site use analyze_site; to get the candidate set first use get_refined_queue. SCORING MECHANICS (2026-07-11): a candidate missing a validated objective is weight-RENORMALIZED over the objectives it carries and the gap is DECLARED in missing_objectives (never silently scored 0); a candidate carrying none scores null and ranks last. percentile=true fields without a population baseline fall back to RELATIVE in-batch scoring (basis reported per-objective in objective_status). CANDIDATE CONTRACT: candidates may be {candidate_id: "cand…"} entries from get_refined_queue — frozen identity (lat/lng/capacity_mw/fiber_km/iso) loads from the mint, your metrics overlay the rest; expired/unknown ids are dropped AND declared in candidate_contract, never re-resolved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_kNoHow many top-ranked sites to return (1-50, default 3)
absoluteNofalse (default) = min-max normalize within THIS batch (best-in-set, NOT stable across runs). true = score on a FIXED 0-100 scale for CROSS-RUN-STABLE, auditable scores — use ONLY when the objective fields are already 0-100 (analyze_site scores like risk_resilience/fiber_connectivity), not raw distances like fiber_km
candidatesNoArray of candidate objects. PREFERRED: {candidate_id: "cand_…", <your metric fields>} using ids from get_refined_queue — frozen coordinates/capacity/fiber_km load from the mint (zero transcription drift), your enrichments (e.g. overall_score from analyze_site) overlay. Legacy: {id?, lat?, lng?, <metric fields>} flat objects also work. Omit if using shortlist_name
objectivesNoWeighted objectives {field: signedWeight} — +weight maximizes, -weight minimizes. e.g. {"water_stress": -0.6, "fiber_km": -0.4}. Omit with shortlist_name to reuse the shortlist's saved objectives; required with candidates
percentileNotrue = score each objective as its PERCENTILE against the viable-site POPULATION ("better than X% of viable sites") — the strongest cross-run + cross-region comparability. Works for fields with a maintained baseline (analyze_site metrics: overall_score, risk_resilience, fiber_connectivity, power_infrastructure, market_conditions, gas_pipeline_access, fiber_km, power_cost); other fields fall back to absolute (listed in unbaselined_fields). Takes precedence over absolute
constraintsNoHard filters {field: {min?, max?}} — a candidate missing a constrained field is dropped (fail-closed). e.g. {"risk_resilience": {"min": 70}, "estimated_ttp_months": {"max": 34}}
shortlist_nameNoAlternative to candidates: re-rank a SAVED shortlist (created via save_to_shortlist) in one shot — loads its sites (scoped to your API key) + reuses their saved objectives if you pass none, and re-scores against the current baseline
require_completeNotrue = DROP any candidate missing one or more of your (validated) objectives — dropped candidates are DECLARED in excluded_incomplete, never silent. Default false keeps incomplete candidates ranked on their carried objectives with missing_objectives flagged. Recommended true for autonomous take-rank-1 workflows (an incomplete candidate can otherwise top the ranking on its single best metric).

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by disclosing fail-closed constraint behavior, declared drops for expired/unknown candidates, weight renormalization when objectives are missing, always-declared missing_objectives, and the percentile fallback to relative in-batch scoring. No contradiction with annotations; the additional mechanics are exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 description is dense but well organized: summary, use-case routing, scoring mechanics, candidate contract. It front-loads the core purpose and every later sentence addresses an edge case or decision an agent would otherwise get wrong. The length is proportionate to an 8-parameter tool with nuanced behavior.

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?

Covers the full invocation flow: candidate sourcing, objective construction, constraint semantics, normalization modes, shortlist re-ranking, and failure/drop notification. With an output schema present and the description enumerating key result fields (rank, objective_score, normalized{}, missing_objective, candidate_contract, excluded_incomplete), an agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Alhough schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantic rules beyond the schema: signed weights mean +maximizes and -minimizes with a concrete example, absolute=true is only valid for fields already in 0-100, percentile has a specific baseline-field list plus fallback, and require_complete gets a recommendation for autonomous workflows. These are non-obvious invocation constraints that materially improve correct parameter choice.

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?

Opens with 'Deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints' and clearly states the normalization contract for comparing sites across analyze_site calls. It names the result shape (_entity=ranked_sites, rank, objective_score, normalized{}) and explicitly contrasts with analyze_site and get_refined_queue, so an agent can distinguish 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?

Explicitly says use for 'pick the best Nes under constraints'; instructs to use analyze_site for a single site and get_refined_queue for the candidate set. Also documents the shortlist_name alternative and warns when absolute=true should NOT be used, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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.