DC Hub

Market Scenario Simulator

simulate_scenario

Read-onlyIdempotent

Counterfactual WHAT-IF re-scoring of 300+ DC Hub power markets under YOUR explicit deltas — answers "what happens to the market ranking if conditions change" (only DC Hub holds the underlying components). Params (all optional, pass at least one delta): avg_kwh_cents_pct (power-price % change, e.g. 30), time_to_power_months_delta (months added/removed), queue_wait_months_delta, reserve_margin_pct_delta (points), curtailment_pct_delta (points), market (one slug, e.g. abilene), top_n (default 10, max 25 — ranked by |score change|). Returns per-market baseline vs scenario composite + component breakdown + the EXACT formula/weights in every response (transparent scenario_composite — deliberately NOT the DCPI). Keyless callers get a top-3 preview; any live key (claim_free_key) returns up to 25. Answers "what happens to the ranking if power prices jump 30%", "which markets survive a tighter build rate". Try: simulate_scenario avg_kwh_cents_pct=30 top_n=10. Do NOT use for the present-day ranking (use rank_markets) or trajectory extrapolation (use predict_market_trajectory); this answers explicit hypotheticals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top_n`	No	Markets to return, ranked by \|score delta\| (default 10)
`market`	No	Score ONE market by slug (optional), e.g. abilene — slugs from rank_markets
`avg_kwh_cents_pct`	No	Power price % change, e.g. 30 for +30% or -20 for -20%
`curtailment_pct_delta`	No	Percentage POINTS added/removed from curtailment
`queue_wait_months_delta`	No	Months added/removed from interconnection queue wait
`reserve_margin_pct_delta`	No	Percentage POINTS added/removed from reserve margin, e.g. -5
`time_to_power_months_delta`	No	Months added (+) or removed (-) from time-to-power, e.g. 12

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quota`	No	Caller quota state (remaining calls, tier).
`_entity`	No	Payload class (facility\|market\|iso_grid\|queue_results\|deal\|report\|response); branch on it.
`citation`	No	How to attribute DC Hub: {source, url, license, cite_as, retrieved_at}, or the attribution line as a string.
`provenance`	No	Source, method, as_of, verification_counts, license, cite_as; quote it when citing.
`_front_door`	No	First-tool hint: plan_query(intent) returns the ordered plan.
`_return_loop`	No	Next-session delta call (get_changes).
`site_evaluation_handoff`	No	Follow-up calls [{tool, parameters, why}] when the payload carries coordinates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 9, 2026
RemovedSep 29, 2026

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 21, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed5 schema fields changedAug 11, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / citation / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -{}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / citation / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / citation / description

Previous value: -"Machine-readable citation: how to attribute DC Hub (dchub.cloud) for this payload."New value: +"Machine-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."

removedOutput schema / properties / citation / properties
```
Removed value: -{}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / citation / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / _front_door

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "In-band front-door hint (first workflow-entry tool of a session): call plan_query(intent) first for the ordered multi-step plan.",
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedJul 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond annotations: keyless callers receive only a top-3 preview while any live key returns up to 25, and it flags that the returned scenario_composite is deliberately NOT the DCPI. This auth-gated result behavior is the sort of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then params, returns, example, and exclusions in a deliberate order, with the call example (simulate_scenario avg_kwh_cents_pct=30 top_n=10) giving an immediate template. It is dense and slightly over-packaged, but nearly every clause carries routing or behavioral 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 a 7-param counterfactual tool, the description covers the hypothetical framing, delta semantics, ranking rule, key-tier limits, and return shape (baseline vs scenario composite with exact formula/weights). With an output schema present it need not explain returns, yet the added detail leaves no gap for correct invocation.

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, and the schema already documents units and defaults. The description adds a constraint absent from the schema ('all optional, pass at least one delta') plus inline worked examples (avg_kwh_cents_pct=30, top_n=10) that clarify intended magnitude and sign conventions. This exceeds the schema baseline.

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 (counterfactual WHAT-IF re-scoring) and resource (300+ DC Hub power markets) with explicit scope (under user-supplied deltas). It openly contrasts itself with siblings, naming rank_markets and predict_market_trajectory as distinct. An agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use phrasing ('what happens to the ranking if power prices jump 30%') and explicit when-NOT clauses with named alternatives (rank_markets for present-day ranking, predict_market_trajectory for trajectory). Also notes market slugs come from rank_markets. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DC Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.