Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Plan Fiber Leadin

plan_fiber_leadin
Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan N diverse, road-following fibre lead-in routes from a candidate data-center site to a carrier hotel / POP, with indicative build cost and a route-diversity read. Answers "can I get N diverse fibre routes into this site, how far, how much, and where do they share a corridor?". Example: plan_fiber_leadin from="250 Paringa Road, Murarrie QLD" to="20 Wharf Street, Brisbane City QLD" n=4. Params: from (lat,lng OR street address), to (lat,lng OR address — e.g. a NextDC/Equinix POP), n (1-6 routes, default 4), fibre ("720F"|"1440F"), bore_m (river/rail bore length in metres, optional). Returns per-route length_km + GeoJSON geometry, total_route_km, diversity {min_separation_m_midhaul, shared_street_km}, and indicative cost {capex_usd, opex_usd_yr}. INDICATIVE auto-routed road corridors — NOT engineered alignments; subject to survey, DBYD and carrier confirmation. Do NOT use for a single site-suitability score (use analyze_site) or fibre-provider footprints (use get_fiber_intel).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nNoNumber of diverse routes to plan, 1-6 (default 4)
toYesDestination carrier hotel/POP as "lat,lng" OR an address, e.g. "20 Wharf Street, Brisbane City QLD"
fromYesOrigin site as "lat,lng" OR a street address, e.g. "250 Paringa Road, Murarrie QLD"
fibreNoFibre count spec for cost estimate: "720F" or "1440F"
bore_mNoRiver/rail bore length in metres to add to the route, 0-100000 (optional)

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing that results are 'INDICATIVE auto-routed road corridors — NOT engineered alignments' and 'subject to survey, DBYD and carrier confirmation'. This is valuable caveat information for an agent deciding how much to trust the output.

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: it front-loads the core purpose, gives a concrete example, enumerates parameters and outputs, and closes with critical caveats and exclusions. Despite being longer than average, the structure makes it scannable and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 the question it answers, parameter hints, return payloads, indicative accuracy constraints, and alternative tool routing. An output schema exists, so return values are not strictly necessary, but the description still outlines them. Nothing important for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description restates parameter options and defaults (n=4, fibre '720F'|'1440F', bore_m optional), but adds little meaning beyond the schema. The example is helpful, though it mostly reinforces the schema rather than providing new semantic detail.

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 and resource: 'Plan N diverse, road-following fibre lead-in routes from a candidate data-center site to a carrier hotel / POP'. It states exact outputs (build cost, route-diversity read) and even gives a concrete example, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from siblings like analyze_site or get_fiber_intel.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Answers "can I get N diverse fibre routes into this site..."') and when not to: 'Do NOT use for a single site-suitability score (use analyze_site) or fibre-provider footprints (use get_fiber_intel)'. This gives direct routing to alternatives with no inference required.

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