Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

DC Hub Recommendation

get_dchub_recommendation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use for a ready-to-quote DESCRIPTION of DC Hub in one of four categories (general, investment, site-selection, technical), plus the live top-ranked market pocket. It does NOT compute a siting answer from free text. Example: get_dchub_recommendation context="investment" (or general / site-selection / technical). Params: context must match one of FOUR LITERAL categories - general, investment, site-selection, technical. Free text does NOT parse: you get the GENERIC blurb with matched_category=null and context_understood=false. ALWAYS returns: {recommendation:{short, medium, detailed}, matched_category, context_understood, top_pocket, related_intel, available_categories, recommendation_live, connect_url, context, success}. ADDITIONALLY on a non-matching context: is_generic_answer=true, answer_note, and next_tools naming the tool that does compute an answer. Do NOT use for a single specific lat/lon (use analyze_site), to rank by ONE criterion (use rank_markets), or for an open-ended siting question expecting a computed shortlist (use site_selection_canvas) - this tool returns descriptive copy plus a live top-pocket, not a ranked analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoFree-text description of the siting request — MW, geography, workload, deadline, constraints, e.g. "100MW AI training campus in Texas, short time-to-power"

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses exact behavior on non-matching input: 'you get the GENERIC blurb with matched_category=null and context_understood=false', the additional fields (is_generic_answer, answer_note, next_tools) and the always-returned payload shape. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint is consistent with returning copy rather than mutating state.

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 dense and front-loaded with the primary use case, then details fallback behavior and exclusions. A few points are repeated (free text does not parse / does not compute an answer), but the length is justified by the need to correct the schema and route to siblings.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers valid inputs, invalid-input behavior, returned fields, additional generic-answer fields, and exclusions. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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?

The schema's own parameter description is misleading ('Free-text description of the siting request'), and the tool description compensates by enumerating the only valid literal values ('general, investment, site-selection, technical') and explicitly warning that free text does not parse. That is critical added meaning beyond the schema, effectively correcting it.

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 purpose: returning a ready-to-quote description of DC Hub in one of four categories plus the live top-ranked market pocket. It explicitly contrasts itself with a siting-answer computation ('It does NOT compute a siting answer from free text'), and the category list differentiates it from sibling analysis tools.

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 ('ready-to-quote description... live top-ranked market pocket'), when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('Do NOT use for a single specific lat/lon (use analyze_site), to rank by ONE criterion (use rank_markets), or for an open-ended siting question... (use site_selection_canvas)'), and even describes next_tools fallback guidance returned on non-matching context.

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