Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Score Facility

score_facility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user wants an independent 0-100 grade for ONE existing facility across 7 dimensions — power, fiber, water, climate_risk, tax_environment, talent_pool, expansion. Example: "How does the CoreWeave Las Vegas site score, power-weighted?" — score_facility facility_id= weighting=power_priority. Params: facility_id or name (required); weighting one of "balanced" (default) | "power_priority" | "risk_priority" | "expansion_priority". Returns: composite 0-100, tier_classification, peer comparison, and per-dimension detail. Do NOT use for a raw lat/lon parcel (use analyze_site), to compare 2 or more sites (use compare_sites), or to find similar sites (use find_alternatives).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
weightingNoScoring profile: "balanced" (default), "power_priority", "risk_priority", or "expansion_priority"
facility_idYesThe facility id/slug to score (required), from a prior search_facilities result

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the score is 'independent', based on 7 fixed dimensions, and returns composite, tier, peer comparison, and per-dimension detail. No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed, but that is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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?

Dense but well-organized: trigger, example, parameter summary, return summary, and exclusions. Each segment earns its place and the key scope information is 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?

For a scoring tool with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers when to use it, how to invoke it, what parameters are available, what it returns, and when not to use it. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description carries a light burden. It still adds value by explaining the weighting options with defaults, providing an example mapping facility_id and weighting to values, and clarifying that facility_id comes from a prior search_facilities result. The only minor issue is the phrase 'facility_id or name' which slightly conflicts with the schema's required facility_id.

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?

States a specific verb ('score') and resource ('ONE existing facility') with an exact output range ('0-100') across 7 named dimensions. The 'Do NOT use' exclusions explicitly differentiate it from analyze_site, compare_sites, and find_alternatives, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Opens with 'Use when...', gives a concrete user query and invocation example, and closes with explicit 'Do NOT use' conditions naming alternative tools. This is complete routing guidance 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