Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Set Site Alert

set_site_alert

Arm an email watch on a site you already saved (FREE with a key) — DC Hub emails you when that site’s DCPI score, grid capacity, or nearby facilities move, so you don’t have to keep re-checking. On the free tier the alert is delivered to your human’s bound email (call bind_email first; notify_email is forced to that address). Pro can send to any address. The "monitor my shortlist for me" loop: call save_site first (it returns a saved_site_id), then set_site_alert on that id. Params: saved_site_id (required integer, from save_site or list_saved_sites), trigger_type ("dcpi_change" | "capacity_change" | "new_facility_nearby", default "dcpi_change"), threshold (number — the points/MW move that fires it, default 5), notify_email (required — the address the alert is sent to). Answers "let me know if anything changes at the site I saved". Try: set_site_alert saved_site_id=12 trigger_type=dcpi_change threshold=5 notify_email=you@firm.com. Returns {ok, alert_id, message}. Do NOT use to watch a whole MARKET (use set_market_alert) or to save a new site (use save_site); this arms a monitor on ONE already-saved site.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thresholdNoThe points/MW move that fires the alert (default 5)
notify_emailYesEmail address the alert is sent to (required); on free tier forced to your human's bound email
trigger_typeNoWhat movement fires the alert: "dcpi_change" (default), "capacity_change", or "new_facility_nearby"
saved_site_idYesThe saved_site_id returned by save_site or list_saved_sites (required)

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only/non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior: alerts are delivered by email, the free tier forces notification to the bound address and requires bind_email first, while Pro can set any address. It also discloses the response looks like {ok, alert_id, message}.

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 densely packed: purpose, prerequisites, workflow, parameter defaults, example call, return format, and negative guidance. It could be trimmed slightly, but it is still efficient and front-loads the core purpose.

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 four parameters plus free/pro tier behavior, the description covers prerequisites, chaining with save_site and bind_email, alternatives, and output. The example invocation anchors all parameters, making the tool safe to call without needing further context.

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?

Input schema already describes every parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds provenance for saved_site_id, enumerates trigger_type values with defaults, and explains threshold as points/MW move. The only minor blemish is calling saved_site_id an integer when the schema permits string or number.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Arm an email watch on a site you already saved') and the description reiterates that it monitors ONE already-saved site. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying not to use it for whole markets (set_market_alert) or saving sites (save_site).

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 gives a concrete workflow (call bind_email first on free tier; call save_site first, then set_site_alert), states when it is appropriate ('monitor my shortlist for me'), and names the alternatives. It also provides a try example and return shape, leaving little ambiguity.

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