Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

Compare Sites

compare_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels and wants a side-by-side winner picker across power, gas, fiber, market & risk — with a recommended pick and the reason. Runs the analyze_site read on each parcel and ranks them by overall score. Example: "Compare a Phoenix parcel and an Ashburn parcel for a 50MW build — which wins and why?" — compare_sites locations="33.45,-112.07;39.04,-77.48" capacity_mw=50. Params: locations is a semicolon-separated list of "lat,lon" pairs (2-4 max); capacity_mw is the target load in MW (e.g. 50-500) and is forwarded to every site — each carries its own capacity_context; it does NOT move overall_score, so the winner is picked on location suitability, not on your requested load. Returns (full, paid): {sites:[{lat, lon, capacity_requested_mw, overall_score (0-100 composite), interpretation (verdict string, e.g. "Excellent site"), scores{power_infrastructure, gas_pipeline_access, fiber_connectivity, market_conditions, risk_resilience — each 0-100}, nearby{substations_50km, power_plants_80km, gas_pipelines_50km, facilities_100km, fiber_carriers_in_state, generation_capacity_mw, total_capacity_mw}, fiber{connectivity_score, carrier_count, nearest_carrier_km, near_net_bucket, single_carrier_risk, top_carriers[{carrier, distance_km}]}, power_cost, location}], winner:{lat, lon, overall_score, why}, decision_rationale, citation}. Each site carries the same shape analyze_site returns. compare_sites is a paid/Pro tool — the free tier returns a locked preview, not the comparison. Do NOT use for a single site (use analyze_site) or to rank entire markets (use rank_markets).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sitesNoAlternative to locations: an array of {lat, lon} (or {lat, lng}) objects, 2-4 sites
mpp_payNoAutonomous payment (Stripe MPP), step 1: set true to receive a signed $0.50 payment challenge for this call instead of the free preview. No money moves — a challenge is a price quote. Humans never set this, so it does not affect the normal free/trial funnel.
locationsNoSemicolon-separated list of 2-4 "lat,lon" pairs to compare, e.g. "33.45,-112.07;39.04,-77.48"
capacity_mwNoTarget power load for the build in megawatts (MW), e.g. 50 (typical 50-500)
mpp_credentialNoAutonomous payment (Stripe MPP), step 2: the Shared Payment Token you minted for challenges[0]. Set it here to pay $0.50 for this single call and receive the full result — no API key, no subscription, no human. One payment covers one call.

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it runs analyze_site on each parcel, ranks by overall_score, and crucially notes that capacity_mw does NOT affect overall_score. The free-tier preview vs. paid full result is also disclosed. No contradiction with 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 long but every sentence carries weight: an example call, param explanations, output shape, exclusions, and payment caveat. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage. While not short, it is appropriately dense for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema, payment flow, and exclusions), the description is remarkably complete. It includes an inline output schema, explains the free vs. paid behavior, clarifies capacity_mw's limited role, and names the sibling alternatives. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

All 5 params are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: the exact format of locations (semicolon-separated lat,lon pairs), the non-impact of capacity_mw on scoring, and the two-step mpp_pay/mpp_credential payment flow. This extra context earns a 4.

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 states a specific verb (compare) and resource (2-4 candidate parcels) with a clear winner-picker outcome. It explicitly distinguishes from analyze_site (single site) and rank_markets (whole markets), so an agent can immediately tell when this tool is appropriate.

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 explicitly states when to use ('when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels') and when not ('Do NOT use for a single site... or to rank entire markets'), naming the alternatives. The paid-tier distinction is also disclosed, leaving no ambiguity about context.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes despite some thematic overlap, and each description includes explicit 'Do NOT use' guidance to prevent misselection. However, a few pairs like search_intelligence vs semantic_search are nearly identical in function, and the sheer number of tools increases the chance of selecting the wrong one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a predictable 'get_*' prefix for data reads, and many others use verb_noun patterns (analyze_*, rank_*, save_*, set_*). There are a handful of outliers like ai_capacity_index, grid_transition_radar, and site_selection_canvas that break the pattern, but overall the conventions are consistent enough for an agent to infer meaning.

Tool Count2/5

With 82 tools, this server is extremely heavy compared to typical MCP servers (3-15 tools). While the domain is broad, many tools serve narrow sub-purposes and could be consolidated (e.g., multiple site-scoring variants, multiple grid telemetry endpoints). The count overwhelms an agent's ability to choose efficiently and feels like over-fragmentation rather than necessary granularity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data-center siting intelligence: site analysis, grid, fiber, water, climate, tax, permitting, deals, news, saved-site management, and meta-planning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete or update operations for saved sites), but the core workflows are well-supported and the descriptions are comprehensive.