Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Get Composite Site Score

get_composite_site_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user wants ONE honest 0-100 site suitability/risk verdict for a lat/lon WITH an explicit per-factor coverage map — which factors are actually measured vs. declared unavailable. Unlike analyze_site (full raw data dump), this scores ONLY over VALIDATED factors and never imputes a missing one: power/grid, fiber, natural-hazard risk (FEMA NRI) and water (live WRI Aqueduct 4.0 baseline water stress) are all live; water is "unavailable" only outside basin coverage (never faked); market/DCPI is v1-unavailable (use rank_markets). Example: get_composite_site_score lat=33.45 lon=-112.07 state=AZ. Returns {composite_score (0-100 over validated factors), verdict (BUILD/CAUTION/AVOID), confidence (complete|conditional), coverage {power_grid|fiber|water|risk_resilience|market_dcpi: validated|unavailable}, coverage_ratio, sub_scores, caveats}. Use analyze_site for full data, compare_sites for 2-4 sites, rank_markets for whole-market ranking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoSite latitude in decimal degrees (-90 to 90, required), e.g. 33.45
lngNoAlias for lon — either name works
lonNoSite longitude in decimal degrees (-180 to 180, required), e.g. -112.07
stateNoUS state abbreviation (optional) — improves water/context lookups, 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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it scores only over validated factors, never imputes missing factors, treats water as unavailable only outside basin coverage, and exposes confidence as complete|conditional. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense: use case, coverage rules, example, return shape, and sibling routing are all front-loaded and purposeful. Every sentence earns its place for a composite scoring tool with nuanced availability semantics.

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 output schema exists, the description still explains the critical behavioral context: which factors are validated, how unavailability is represented, what confidence means, and which sibling tools cover adjacent use cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description reinforces usage with a concrete example (lat=33.45 lon=-112.07 state=AZ) and mentions state improves lookups, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific use case: a single 0-100 site suitability/risk verdict for a lat/lon with an explicit per-factor coverage map. It explicitly contrasts itself with analyze_site and names the output fields, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 says 'Use when...' and gives explicit routing guidance: analyze_site for full data, compare_sites for 2-4 sites, and rank_markets for whole-market ranking. It also directs market/DCPI needs to rank_markets, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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