Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

Rank Sites

rank_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints — the normalization contract that lets you compare sites across separate analyze_site calls WITHOUT dropping into code. Pass candidates you already enriched (each an object with lat/lng + metric fields like risk_resilience, water_stress, fiber_km — pull these from analyze_site + get_refined_queue and pass site_evaluation_handoff through untouched), hard constraints, and weighted objectives; get back entity=ranked_sites: top_k ranked with rank, objective_score, per-field normalized{} (0-100 relative to the set), and normalization_basis. objectives use SIGNED weights: +weight maximizes a field (e.g. risk_resilience:1), -weight minimizes it (e.g. water_stress:-0.6, fiber_km:-0.4). constraints are hard filters, fail-closed on a missing field. Use for "pick the best N sites under constraints"; for one site use analyze_site; to get the candidate set first use get_refined_queue. SCORING MECHANICS (2026-07-11): a candidate missing a validated objective is weight-RENORMALIZED over the objectives it carries and the gap is DECLARED in missing_objectives (never silently scored 0); a candidate carrying none scores null and ranks last. percentile=true fields without a population baseline fall back to RELATIVE in-batch scoring (basis reported per-objective in objective_status). CANDIDATE CONTRACT: candidates may be {candidate_id: "cand…"} entries from get_refined_queue — frozen identity (lat/lng/capacity_mw/fiber_km/iso) loads from the mint, your metrics overlay the rest; expired/unknown ids are dropped AND declared in candidate_contract, never re-resolved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_kNoHow many top-ranked sites to return (1-50, default 3)
absoluteNofalse (default) = min-max normalize within THIS batch (best-in-set, NOT stable across runs). true = score on a FIXED 0-100 scale for CROSS-RUN-STABLE, auditable scores — use ONLY when the objective fields are already 0-100 (analyze_site scores like risk_resilience/fiber_connectivity), not raw distances like fiber_km
candidatesNoArray of candidate objects. PREFERRED: {candidate_id: "cand_…", <your metric fields>} using ids from get_refined_queue — frozen coordinates/capacity/fiber_km load from the mint (zero transcription drift), your enrichments (e.g. overall_score from analyze_site) overlay. Legacy: {id?, lat?, lng?, <metric fields>} flat objects also work. Omit if using shortlist_name
objectivesNoWeighted objectives {field: signedWeight} — +weight maximizes, -weight minimizes. e.g. {"water_stress": -0.6, "fiber_km": -0.4}. Omit with shortlist_name to reuse the shortlist's saved objectives; required with candidates
percentileNotrue = score each objective as its PERCENTILE against the viable-site POPULATION ("better than X% of viable sites") — the strongest cross-run + cross-region comparability. Works for fields with a maintained baseline (analyze_site metrics: overall_score, risk_resilience, fiber_connectivity, power_infrastructure, market_conditions, gas_pipeline_access, fiber_km, power_cost); other fields fall back to absolute (listed in unbaselined_fields). Takes precedence over absolute
constraintsNoHard filters {field: {min?, max?}} — a candidate missing a constrained field is dropped (fail-closed). e.g. {"risk_resilience": {"min": 70}, "estimated_ttp_months": {"max": 34}}
shortlist_nameNoAlternative to candidates: re-rank a SAVED shortlist (created via save_to_shortlist) in one shot — loads its sites (scoped to your API key) + reuses their saved objectives if you pass none, and re-scores against the current baseline
require_completeNotrue = DROP any candidate missing one or more of your (validated) objectives — dropped candidates are DECLARED in excluded_incomplete, never silent. Default false keeps incomplete candidates ranked on their carried objectives with missing_objectives flagged. Recommended true for autonomous take-rank-1 workflows (an incomplete candidate can otherwise top the ranking on its single best metric).

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 mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees (rank/optimization is read/derive-oriented). Beyond the annotations, it adds rich behavioral detail: missing-objective weight renormalization with declared gaps, percentile fallback semantics, candidate contract behavior for expired/unknown ids (dropped AND declared, never re-resolved), and absolute=true caveats about cross-run stability. This is signal the structured annotations cannot express.

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 long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact (normalization basis, signed weights, fail-closed, renormalization, percentile fallback, candidate contract, require_complete guidance). It is front-loaded with the core contract and organizes mechanics into labeled paragraphs. Only a few asides, such as the repeated 'never silent' phrasing, could be tightened without losing information.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no required parameters, the description covers the main paths (candidates vs shortlist), the ranking semantics, constraint semantics, candidate contract, output shape (_entity=ranked_sites, top_k, rank, objective_score, normalized{}), and even operational advice (require_complete for autonomous workflows). Output schema exists, and the description supplements it with normalization_basis and missing_objectives context rather than repeating return details.

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 description coverage is 100%, yet the prose still adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains signed objective weights with examples, clarifies fail-closed constraint semantics, distinguishes the frozen mint identity from metric overlays, and sharpens the percentile population-baseline caveat. Even the schema's parameter descriptions benefit from the surrounding prose that describes the normalization contract and candidate contract.

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 ('Deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints') and immediately positions it as the normalization contract for comparing sites across separate analyze_site calls. It names sibling tools it is not (analyze_site, get_refined_queue), and the rest of the description makes the ranking contract unmistakable. A reader can distinguish rank_sites from the 70 siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use for "pick the best N sites under constraints"'), and exclusions for alternatives ('for one site use analyze_site; to get the candidate set first use get_refined_queue'). It also covers the shortlist path versus candidates path, signed-weight semantics, fail-closed constraints, and the require_complete recommendation for autonomous take-rank-1 workflows.

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.