Skip to main content
Glama

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

by cloud.dchub

Research Dossier (async)

research_task
Read-onlyIdempotent

Commission an ASYNC, CITED research dossier from DC Hub's corpora (news, deals, facilities, market deep-dive narratives + live market components) — a decision-ready analyst brief with [n] citations, not a lookup. Requires a key (one claim_free_key call), 5 dossiers/day. Submits the question, waits up to ~35s for completion, and returns the finished dossier inline when ready; if still running, returns {task_id} — call research_task task_id= to fetch it. Params: question (required for a new dossier, min 12 chars) OR task_id (poll an earlier one). Typical completion under a minute. Answers "write me a cited brief on this", "what do recent deals say about gas-bridged power". Try: research_task question="What do recent deals say about gas-bridged power for data centers in ERCOT?". Do NOT use for a single fact (use search_intelligence / semantic_search); this synthesizes ACROSS sources with citations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idNoPoll an earlier submission: the task_id returned by a previous research_task call
questionNoThe research question (min 12 chars) — omit when polling with task_id

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds substantial behavioral context: async semantics (~35s wait, inline return vs task_id), polling mechanism, quota/rate limits (5 dossiers/day), key requirement, and cross-source synthesis with citations — all beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, quota, async behavior, params, examples, and exclusions. Slightly long, yet the async/polling semantics genuinely require this much explanation. Front-loaded with the core purpose before operational details.

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 async behavior, polling lifecycle, quota, and auth prerequisites, the description covers every operational aspect an agent needs: return modes, how to poll, limits, key requirement, examples, and when to route elsewhere. Output schema covers return-value details, so nothing critical 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 covers both params at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: the XOR relationship (question for new dossier, task_id for polling), the exact polling call signature (research_task task_id=<id>), and the min-12-char requirement in context of submission flow.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Commission an ASYNC, CITED research dossier from DC Hub's corpora' — an analyst brief synthesizing across sources, 'not a lookup'. Explicitly distinguishes itself from search_intelligence / semantic_search by naming the alternatives it is not.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use phrasing ('write me a cited brief on this'), a concrete try-it example, an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT use for a single fact'), named alternatives, prerequisites (claim_free_key, 5/day limit), and the polling flow. Nothing is left to inference.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy nearly identical semantic space: search/search_facilities/search_intelligence/semantic_search all retrieve data, and analyze_site/compare_sites/score_facility/get_composite_site_score/rank_sites all score or rank locations. Despite extensive disambiguation in the descriptions, the boundaries are subtle enough that an agent will likely misroute queries. Account and meta tools (claim_free_key, bind_email, unlock_more_data, subscribe_digest, recover_my_key, execute_plan, plan_query, discover_tools) add further selection noise.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun convention (get_*, search_*, list_*, set_*, save_*, compare_*, analyze_*, rank_*, plan_*). A few noun-phrase names break the pattern (deal_autopsy, hyperscaler_deals, grid_transition_radar, site_selection_canvas, standing_intent, ai_capacity_index), but these are still readable and discoverable.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme count for any server, far beyond the 25+ threshold that already signals bloat. The domain is broad, but the catalog is inflated by overlapping variants, multiple meta-tools (execute_plan, plan_query, discover_tools, get_agent_registry, get_backup_status, summarize_for_citation), and account/upgrade plumbing (claim_free_key, bind_email, recover_my_key, unlock_more_data, subscribe_digest). This imposes heavy context and selection costs on agents.

Completeness5/5

The data-center siting domain is covered exhaustively: single-site scoring, market ranking, grid/gas/fiber/water/climate/disaster/tax/permitting intelligence, interconnection queues, construction pipeline, deals/news, saved-site monitoring, alerts, research dossiers, and citation support. Every workflow has a continuation path, so agents will not hit dead ends.

Resources