Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dchub

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Dchub Get Interconnection Queue

dchub_get_interconnection_queue
Read-onlyIdempotent

Grid interconnection queue depth (DC Hub): queued generation GW per US ISO, how congested the queue is, and ERCOT's large-load (data-center) queue. Omit iso for an all-ISO snapshot; pass iso for per-project rows on one grid. Keyless calls return a preview.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "iso": "ERCOT"
    },
    "name": "dchub_get_interconnection_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isoNoISO/RTO grid region, e.g. ERCOT, PJM, MISO, CAISO, SPP, NYISO, ISONE; omit for the all-ISO snapshot

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo
sourceNo
previewNo
preview_noticeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / projects / description
      Added value: +"Array of per-project rows when iso is given; a summary object (by_iso_count + a sample top[] array) for the all-ISO snapshot (iso omitted); null when withheld by tier."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / projects / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "array",
-  "null"
-]New value: +[
+  "array",
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that — the aggregate-vs-per-project granularity split and the fact that keyless calls return only a preview, which is an auth/tier behavior an agent needs to anticipate.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the data is before the parameter behavior. The parentheticals ('DC Hub', 'data-center') are compact clarifiers rather than filler, though the first sentence is dense enough to require a second read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and it correctly focuses on scope, granularity, and the preview restriction. It stops short of stating units coverage per ISO or whether historical snapshots are available, minor gaps for a single-optional-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's own parameter description already states the ISO examples and the 'omit for all-ISO snapshot' semantics. The description restates the same omit-vs-pass distinction without adding format, casing, or validation detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and metric — grid interconnection queue depth, queued generation GW per US ISO, ERCOT large-load queue — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as dchub_get_grid_data or dchub_source_capacity, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear conditional guidance: omit iso for an all-ISO aggregate snapshot, pass iso for per-project rows on a single grid. That resolves the main usage decision for this tool, but it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools for related grid data.

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

All Dchub toolsInspect
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.

Resources