Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Predict Market Trajectory

predict_market_trajectory
Read-onlyIdempotent

Forecast a DCPI market's near-term trajectory (next 1-8 quarters). Projects excess_power_score and constraint_score forward with confidence bands that WIDEN with horizon, from DC Hub's daily DCPI snapshot history — the only source that can, because it owns the time-series. Use to answer "is this market trending toward BUILD or AVOID?" or "will Dallas power stay tight over the next 6 months?". Params: market_slug (required, metro slug e.g. dallas, phoenix, northern-virginia — valid slugs come from rank_markets / get_market_dcpi_rank); horizon_quarters (optional 1-8, default 4; 2 = ~6 months out). Returns {market_slug, method, basis{history_points, history_span_days, slope_per_day, trend}, horizon_quarters, projection[{quarter_out, excess_power_score, excess_power_band, constraint_score, constraint_band}], caveat, snapshot_record}. HONEST: linear trend extrapolation, NOT a guarantee — bands widen with horizon and short history; needs >=3 daily snapshots or it declines. Do NOT use for a single point-in-time verdict (use get_market_dcpi_rank) or to rank many markets (use rank_markets).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
market_slugYesMarket slug (metro), e.g. dallas, phoenix, northern-virginia — valid slugs come from rank_markets / get_market_dcpi_rank
horizon_quartersNoForecast horizon in quarters (1-8, default 4); 2 = ~6 months ahead

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: 'HONEST: linear trend extrapolation, NOT a guarantee', bands widen with horizon/short history, and the requirement of '>=3 daily snapshots or it declines'. This tells the agent how the forecast behaves and its limitations.

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?

Although the description is long, it is densely informative and clearly structured with labeled sections: core function, use cases, Params, Returns, HONEST caveats, and Do NOT guidance. Every sentence earns its place; the essential purpose and scope are front-loaded.

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?

The description is fully complete for the tool's complexity: it covers the forecast method, data source, parameter semantics, return shape (including nested basis and projection objects), caveats, and exclusions. Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving example slugs (dallas, phoenix, northern-virginia), explaining where valid slugs come from ('valid slugs come from rank_markets / get_market_dcpi_rank'), and interpreting horizon_quarters ('2 = ~6 months out'). This is helpful enrichment beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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: 'Forecast a DCPI market's near-term trajectory (next 1-8 quarters)'. It names the projected fields (excess_power_score, constraint_score), the data source (DC Hub's daily DCPI snapshot history), and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like get_market_dcpi_rank and rank_markets. An agent can immediately understand what this tool uniquely does.

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 use cases: 'Use to answer "is this market trending toward BUILD or AVOID?"' and gives a concrete example question. It also states clear when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives: 'Do NOT use for a single point-in-time verdict (use get_market_dcpi_rank) or to rank many markets (use rank_markets)'. This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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