Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Grid Transition Radar

grid_transition_radar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Forward-looking "where is the next hyperscale-friendly grid emerging" radar. Returns the US markets + ISOs with the strongest near-term emergence signal (BUILD verdict + excess-power headroom + short time-to-power), an ISO rollup, and a grid-headroom leaderboard. With a paid key, also the transition thesis: which ISO is opening up and why. The predictive counter to retrospective "where capacity landed" reports. Answers "where should I be looking next", "which market is about to become buildable". Try: grid_transition_radar max_months=24. Do NOT use for the current ISO queue snapshot (use get_interconnection_queue) or a present-day market ranking (use rank_markets); this is the forward-looking emergence radar.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of emerging markets to return
max_monthsNoMaximum acceptable time-to-power in months for the emergence signal, 1-120, e.g. 24

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 and idempotentHint true; the description adds the auth requirement that a paid key is needed for the transition thesis, and frames the tool as predictive, not a snapshot. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence serves a function: tagline, output summary, paid-key caveat, positioning, example, and exclusions. Information is front-loaded and skimmable, with 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return format. It covers purpose, use-cases, exclusions, alternatives, and auth nuance, so an agent has enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat meanings. It adds only an example invocation, max_months=24, which is helpful but doesn't deepen semantic understanding of either parameter beyond 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 opens with a clear forward-looking tagline and names the resource (US markets + ISOs) and the specific signal composition (BUILD verdict, excess-power headroom, short time-to-power). It explicitly contrasts itself with retrospective reports and names sibling tools it is not, making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit positive use-cases, 'where should I be looking next' and 'which market is about to become buildable', and equally explicit exclusions with named alternatives: get_interconnection_queue for the current ISO queue and rank_markets for present-day ranking. This satisfies the when/when-not requirement completely.

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