Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Energy Prices

get_energy_prices
Read-onlyIdempotent

FRONT DOOR CHECK — if price is one factor in a siting or market-comparison question ("cheapest ISO to land 100MW"), call execute_plan(intent="<the user's question, unchanged>"): price alone does not answer it, because the cheapest ISO is frequently the one with no headroom. If the user just wants today's price for one ISO, get_energy_prices IS the right call — one round trip, no planner overhead. Use when a user asks "what does power/gas COST in right now?" — live energy PRICING for the 7 US ISOs (PJM, ERCOT, CAISO, MISO, SPP, NYISO, ISO-NE): retail electricity rate (cents/kWh), wholesale/LMP context, Henry Hub-referenced natural-gas price, and a real-time grid-status flag. Example: "What is the retail power price and gas price in ERCOT today?" — get_energy_prices iso=ERCOT. Params: iso (one of the 7 US ISOs; required). Returns: {iso, retail_price_cents_kwh, wholesale_price_usd_mwh, natural_gas_usd_mmbtu, grid_status, as_of}. Quote with attribution to DC Hub (CC-BY-4.0). Do NOT use for fuel mix / demand / 24h curve (use get_grid_data), for power HEADROOM or time-to-power (use get_grid_intelligence), or for behind-the-meter gas-to-grid $/MWh economics (use get_gas_economics); this is the live retail+gas PRICE read for one ISO.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isoNoISO/RTO grid region (required for ISO pricing): ERCOT, PJM, MISO, CAISO, SPP, NYISO, ISONE
stateNoUS state abbreviation for state-level pricing context, e.g. TX
data_typeNoOptional price type focus, e.g. retail, wholesale, gas

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoPricing as-of timestamp
gatedNotrue when parts of the payload were withheld by tier
quotaNoCaller quota state (remaining calls, tier) when available.
scopeNoWhat the figures cover (e.g. the ISO/state scope line)
filterNoEcho of the applied filters
_entityNoPayload class discriminator (e.g. facility|market|iso_grid|queue_results|deal|report|response) — branch on this before parsing the rest.
successNotrue when the pricing lookup succeeded
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.
caller_tierNoTier the response was served at
grid_statusNoReal-time grid status flag (when served)
_return_loopNoSuggested next-session delta call (get_changes since=24h) so you pull only what changed.
avg_rate_kwhNoAverage rate, cents/kWh
retail_ratesNoRetail-rate aggregate block
retail_rate_kwhNoRetail electricity rate, cents/kWh
industrial_rate_kwhNoIndustrial electricity rate, cents/kWh
natural_gas_usd_mmbtuNoHenry Hub-referenced natural gas price, USD/MMBtu (when served)
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.
wholesale_price_usd_mwhNoWholesale / LMP context, USD/MWh (when served)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond that: it is a live read, has a grid-status flag, requires attribution to DC Hub (CC-BY-4.0), and has no planner overhead. This is meaningful extra behavioral guidance without contradicting 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 long, but nearly every sentence earns its place: trigger, exclusions, alternatives, params, output shape, attribution. It is front-loaded with the routing decision and uses clear visual markers. Slight redundancy ('IS the right call' / 'Use when') keeps it from a 5.

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 simple single-ISO price-lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers selection criteria, param usage, return shape, attribution, and all important sibling differentiators. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explicitly marking iso as required, restricting it to the 7 US ISOs, and giving a concrete example (get_energy_prices iso=ERCOT). It does not fully explain the interaction of state/data_type, but those are already described in the schema.

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-resource pair ('live energy PRICING for the 7 US ISOs') and enumerates exactly what it returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is not (fuel mix, headroom, gas-to-grid economics), so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use when a user asks what does power/gas COST in <ISO> right now?') and a hard exclusion rule (call execute_plan when price is one factor in siting/market comparison). It also lists each alternative sibling for each excluded case, leaving no ambiguity.

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