Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Get Power Pipeline

get_power_pipeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user asks WHERE NEW POWER GENERATION is coming online (the forward supply pipeline) — e.g. "how much new generation is planned in Virginia / the Southeast / ERCOT, and when?". Planned, permitting, and under-construction generators NATIONWIDE from EIA-860M, INCLUDING non-ISO regions (TVA, Southern Co, Arizona PS, PacifiCorp, LADWP) that interconnection-queue feeds miss. Each generator has location (lat/lng), state, county, balancing authority, technology/fuel (solar photovoltaic, onshore wind, natural-gas combined cycle, batteries, nuclear), nameplate megawatts (MW), status (planned → under construction), and planned online month/year. Filter by state (2-letter, e.g. VA), ba (balancing-authority/ISO code, e.g. PJM, ERCO, SOCO, TVA), status (P/L/T=planned, U/V=under construction, TS=testing), or min_mw. Returns a summary (total planned MW, mix by technology + status) plus the largest projects. Answers "how much new generation is planned in Virginia and when does it land". Try: get_power_pipeline state=VA. Do NOT use for ALREADY-OPERATING capacity or grid headroom (use get_grid_intelligence / get_grid_data) or for data-center construction projects (use get_pipeline).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baNoBalancing-authority / ISO code, e.g. PJM, ERCO, SOCO, TVA, AZPS
limitNoMax results to return (1-500; default varies by tool)
stateNoUS state abbreviation to filter generators, e.g. VA, TX
min_mwNoMinimum nameplate capacity filter in megawatts (MW)
statusNoGenerator status code: P/L/T (planned), U/V (under construction), TS (testing)

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: data source (EIA-860M), coverage including non-ISO regions, the exact fields each generator has, filter options, and the output summary format (total planned MW, mix by technology + status, plus largest projects). It also explains the status code meanings. No contradiction with annotations; instead it enriches them.

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 well-structured, starts with the core use case, then covers data source, fields, filters, output, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value and the exclusions are clearly separated. It is slightly long but appropriately so given the tool's complexity and the need to differentiate from many siblings. No 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 has 5 optional parameters, an output schema, and a complex domain with many sibling tools, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what data it returns, filter options, output summary, examples, and explicit alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without further research.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining status codes (P/L/T=planned, U/V=under construction, TS=testing), giving example values for state and ba (VA, PJM, ERCO, SOCO, TVA), and clarifying how min_mw filters based on nameplate capacity. It enriches parameter understanding but not drastically beyond what the schema already provides, hence a 4.

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 answers WHERE NEW POWER GENERATION is coming online (the forward supply pipeline). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying what it is NOT for (operating capacity, grid headroom, data-center construction) and even names alternative tools. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose that differentiates from the many sibling 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples ('how much new generation is planned in Virginia / the Southeast / ERCOT, and when?'), a ready-to-try call (state=VA), and explicit exclusions with alternative tools ('Do NOT use for ALREADY-OPERATING capacity or grid headroom (use get_grid_intelligence / get_grid_data) or for data-center construction projects (use get_pipeline)'). This fully orients the agent on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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