Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Get Disaster Risk

get_disaster_risk
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user wants the natural-hazard / disaster risk for a lat/lon — flood, wildfire, hurricane, earthquake, heat, drought, tornado, etc. Grounded in the FEMA National Risk Index (NRI), the authoritative US county-level hazard dataset (live query, never estimated; points outside US NRI coverage return coverage=unavailable). Example: get_disaster_risk lat=33.45 lon=-112.07. Returns {disaster_risk:{composite_score (0-100, higher=worse), rating (Very Low..Very High), national_percentile}, hazards:{Wildfire, Hurricane, Earthquake, Heat Wave, ...: rating}, top_hazards:[{hazard, rating}], coverage (validated|unavailable), source, caveats}. County-level resolution. For chronic water stress use get_water_risk; for one blended site verdict use get_composite_site_score.

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
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a live query, never estimated, county-level resolution, and returns coverage=unavailable outside US coverage. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: use case, data source, example, return shape, coverage behavior, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the trigger condition and ends with routing guidance, making it easy to scan.

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, annotations cover safety, and the input schema is fully documented, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It covers use case, source, coverage edge case, return structure, resolution, and alternatives.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example with lat=33.45 and lon=-112.07, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: it retrieves natural-hazard/disaster risk for a lat/lon, listing concrete hazard types and naming the FEMA National Risk Index as the data source. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_water_risk and get_composite_site_score as alternatives, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 opens with 'Use when a user wants...' and provides clear conditions, including coverage limitations for points outside US NRI coverage. It explicitly routes to alternatives for chronic water stress and blended site verdicts, giving the agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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