Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Site Selection Canvas

site_selection_canvas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Guided end-to-end data-center site selection. Give a capacity target + geography + deadline and get a ranked shortlist of US markets (DCPI verdict, excess-power headroom, time-to-power, ISO) — and, with a paid key, the synthesis decision layer: the #1 pick, the why, a build sequence, and risk flags. One find->rank->shortlist->verdict call over the DC Hub Power Index. Answers "where should I build 100 MW in Texas by 2028". Try: site_selection_canvas capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24. Do NOT use for a single known parcel (use analyze_site) or an open-ended where-should-I-build question (use get_dchub_recommendation); this runs the full find to rank to shortlist to verdict flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isoNoISO/RTO code, e.g. ERCOT or PJM — alias for `region`. Use either; `region` wins if both are sent.
limitNoNumber of shortlist markets to return
stateNoUS state code, e.g. OH — alias for `region`. Use either; `region` wins if both are sent.
regionNoGeography scope: a US state code like TX, an ISO like ERCOT, or a region like us/apac. `state` and `iso` are accepted as aliases for this same filter.
mpp_payNoAutonomous payment (Stripe MPP), step 1: set true to receive a signed $0.50 payment challenge for this call instead of the free preview. No money moves — a challenge is a price quote. Humans never set this, so it does not affect the normal free/trial funnel.
verdictNoOptional DCPI verdict filter: BUILD, CAUTION, or AVOID — or ALL to see every scored market in the geography. Defaults to BUILD,CAUTION, so a geography whose markets are all AVOID returns matched:0 plus an `empty_result` block explaining that; re-run with verdict=ALL to see those rows.
max_monthsNoMaximum acceptable time-to-power in months, 1-120, e.g. 24
capacity_mwNoTarget power load for the build in megawatts (MW), 1-5000, e.g. 100
mpp_credentialNoAutonomous payment (Stripe MPP), step 2: the Shared Payment Token you minted for challenges[0]. Set it here to pay $0.50 for this single call and receive the full result — no API key, no subscription, no human. One payment covers one call.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 value by disclosing the paid-key gating for the synthesis decision layer, the staged find->rank->shortlist->verdict flow, and the free preview behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 dense but focused, with useful front-loaded context about the tool's purpose, output, example call, and exclusions. The 'find to rank to shortlist to verdict' flow is stated twice in slightly different forms, but every other sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it names required conceptual inputs, output content, paid-key implications, an example invocation, and clear do-not-use conditions. With schema coverage at 100% and an output schema present, the description does not need to repeat return values or parameter details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a helpful usage example mapping capacity, geography, and deadline to concrete parameters (capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24), which aids correct invocation beyond what the schema alone offers.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Guided end-to-end data-center site selection' that produces a 'ranked shortlist of US markets' with DCPI verdict, excess-power headroom, time-to-power, and ISO. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by saying 'Do NOT use for a single known parcel (use analyze_site) or an open-ended where-should-I-build question (use get_dchub_recommendation)'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Give a capacity target + geography + deadline and get a ranked shortlist.' It names alternatives and exclusion conditions ('use analyze_site' for a known parcel, 'use get_dchub_recommendation' for open-ended questions), and provides a concrete invocation example: 'site_selection_canvas capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24'.

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