Skip to main content
Glama

Dchub Get Market Intel

dchub_get_market_intel
Read-onlyIdempotent

Data-center market intelligence for one metro (DC Hub): facility count, tracked MW, status mix, top providers, pipeline and lease pricing. Market is a slug such as northern-virginia. Keyless calls return a trimmed 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": {
      "market": "northern-virginia"
    },
    "name": "dchub_get_market_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketYesMarket slug, e.g. northern-virginia, dallas, phoenix
metricNoOptional metric focus
periodNoOptional period

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo
sourceNo
previewNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: keyless calls return a trimmed preview, telling the agent to expect degraded results without auth. Freshness/caching behavior is still unstated.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the payload contents are front-loaded, then the market format and the keyless caveat. No wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope and the keyless limitation. The main remaining gap is the meaning/valid values of the optional 'metric' and 'period' parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the market slug format already documented in the schema and gives no guidance on the optional 'metric' and 'period' parameters, so it adds little beyond structured fields.

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+resource ('market intelligence for one metro') and enumerates exactly what comes back: facility count, tracked MW, status mix, top providers, pipeline, lease pricing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dchub_get_grid_data or dchub_search_facilities.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage through the slug example ('Market is a slug such as northern-virginia') and the keyless-preview note, but never says when to pick this over dchub_get_grid_data or dchub_search_facilities, nor any prerequisites for full vs. preview data.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.