Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

Feeder Hosting Capacity

get_hosting_capacity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Utility-PUBLISHED feeder hosting capacity — the MW a NAMED distribution feeder can actually take, straight from the utility's own hosting-capacity GIS. 278,799 published records across 18 utilities (Con Edison, National Grid NY/MA, NYSEG/RG&E, Rhode Island Energy, Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson, Eversource CT, BGE, Pepco/Delmarva/ACE, Dominion VA, Ameren Illinois, AEP Ohio & I&M, Xcel MN/CO, DTE, Avista). This is filed distribution-level truth, not a proximity proxy. Three ways to call it: lat+lon (+radius_km, default 25) for a point; utility or market for a whole published territory; NO ARGS for the coverage list of every market that has data. CRITICAL — check capacity_type before quoting any number: "load" = LOAD-serving headroom, what a new data-center load can actually DRAW (only Ameren Illinois, AEP Ohio & I&M and Central Hudson publish it); "gen" = DER/generation EXPORT capacity, what the feeder can ACCEPT from solar/storage — it is NOT available load and must never be relayed as "you can site N MW here"; "bus_headroom" = transmission bus MW. Returns, split by capacity_type: distinct feeder count, max + median MW, the top feeders with substation, voltage_kv, feeder_id, coords and publish date, plus the utilities publishing them. Honest by construction — published rows are GIS vertices, so distinct_feeders and geometry_rows_scanned are reported separately (never conflated), and a capacity-capped read is flagged sample_complete=false with the capacity_floor_mw at or above which the set IS provably complete. Coverage is 18 utilities concentrated in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest — NOT nationwide — and a point outside them returns an explicit not-published answer with the nearest covered markets, never a silent zero. Answers "can this feeder actually take 20 MW", "where can I plug in without waiting on a substation upgrade". Try: get_hosting_capacity utility="Ameren Illinois" capacity_type=load min_mw=5. Do NOT use for transmission-substation proximity or time-to-power (use get_grid_intelligence), the ISO interconnection queue (use get_interconnection_queue / get_refined_queue), or retiring-plant headroom (use get_retirement_headroom) — this is the distribution FEEDER layer. Informational, not binding interconnection guidance; verify with the utility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude of the point to search around, decimal degrees. Must be paired with lon.
lngNoAlias for lon — either name works
lonNoLongitude of the point to search around, decimal degrees. Must be paired with lat.
limitNoMax results to return (1-500; default varies by tool)
marketNoAlias for utility — either name works (e.g. "Northern Virginia · Richmond", "New York City · Westchester").
min_mwNoOnly return feeders whose published capacity is at or above this many MW.
utilityNoUtility or market name, case-insensitive substring — e.g. "Ameren Illinois", "Con Edison", "Providence". Searches that utility's whole published territory instead of a point radius. Call with NO arguments to list every covered utility.
latitudeNoAlias for lat — either name works
longitudeNoAlias for lon — either name works
radius_kmNoSearch radius in km around lat/lon (default 25, max 150). Ignored when utility/market is passed — that mode covers the utility's entire published extent.
capacity_typeNoRestrict to one published type: "load" (what a new data-center load can DRAW — the type that answers siting), "gen" (DER/generation EXPORT headroom — NOT available load), or "bus_headroom" (transmission bus MW). Omit to get all three reported separately.

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: the capacity_type trap ('gen' is NOT available load and must never be relayed as siting capacity), the sample_complete=false/capacity_floor_mw honesty mechanics, the 'never a silent zero' not-published behavior, and the explicit coverage limitation. This is far more than annotations provide.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, calling modes are grouped, warnings are explicitly separated, and exclusions come at the end. Despite the length, it reads as a dense, organized operating manual rather than filler.

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's complexity, the description covers purpose, all invocation modes, parameter semantics, return value semantics, coverage limitations, example calls, and exclusions to sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly, and the output schema covers the return structure.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the dangerous semantic difference between load vs gen capacity, clarifies that radius_km is ignored in utility mode, shows how min_mw is used, and describes the no-args mode that returns the coverage list. The capacity_type warning alone justifies a top score.

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 verb+resource ('Utility-PUBLISHED feeder hosting capacity — the MW a NAMED distribution feeder can actually take') and explicitly distinguishes this from transmission, interconnection queue, and retirement headroom by naming the sibling tools. It also states the exact questions it answers, so an agent cannot confuse it with neighboring power-grid 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: three calling modes (lat/lon, utility/market, no args), a concrete example invocation, and an explicit 'Do NOT use for...' section naming the correct alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.