Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

AI Agent Registry

get_agent_registry
Read-onlyIdempotent

Curated roster of the AI platforms and agent frameworks in the DC Hub agent ecosystem — each with its recommended DC Hub tools and authentication tier. The roster is BACKEND-OWNED and changes: read the platforms[] array the response returns, and the status on each row (mcp_active / mcp_ready), rather than any list named in this sentence — an enumeration here goes stale the moment the backend adds or drops a platform, which is exactly how a client named here stopped appearing in the roster. ★ These statuses are CURATED EDITORIAL claims, not measurements: the response carries as_of null, so do NOT relay "MCP Active" as though it were a live connection count. Answers "which AI platforms can connect to DC Hub". Try: get_agent_registry. NOTE: this is a curated ecosystem/capability index, NOT live per-caller call/citation telemetry. Do NOT use for platform uptime or feed health (use get_backup_status).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes further by disclosing that the roster is backend-owned and changes, statuses are curated editorial claims rather than live measurements, and the response carries as_of null so 'MCP Active' should not be relayed as a live connection count. This is rich behavioral context beyond 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 longer than strictly necessary, with some redundancy such as repeating the purpose and including the 'Try: get_agent_registry' hint. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each major warning earns its place by preventing a plausible misuse of the tool.

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 has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description covers everything needed: purpose, response structure, key status values, caveats about editorial vs measured data, and explicit non-uses. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on response semantics instead.

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 defines a curated roster of AI platforms and agent frameworks and explicitly answers the question 'which AI platforms can connect to DC Hub'. It also differentiates itself from telemetry tools by stating it is NOT live per-caller telemetry, and points to get_backup_status for uptime/feed health.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it as an ecosystem/capability index, and do NOT use it for platform uptime or feed health. It names the alternative tool (get_backup_status) and tells the agent to read the platforms[] array from the response rather than any static list.

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 & Power Intelligence 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
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.

Resources