Skip to main content
Glama

gisgp

by io.github.uponex

assess_datacenter_site

PAID (300 credits) — data center site-scouting composite: grid proximity (power availability), multi-source hazard (seismic + FEMA + NOAA, required — same contract as assess_property_hazard), land cover, and a year of temperature history (cooling-load proxy). No invented overall suitability score — each source reported honestly. Requires Authorization: Bearer and sufficient credits balance. Returns JSON: {ok, hazard, grid_proximity, land_cover, cooling_climate, note}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses honest reporting ('No invented overall suitability score'), authentication requirements, and credit cost. Does not mention rate limits or error handling, but overall transparent about behavior.

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?

Description is dense but informative, front-loading cost and purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be split for readability. Overall concise given the complexity.

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?

Given the composite nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main output fields and requirements. However, lacks details on data freshness, geographic coverage, or error conditions. Mostly complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters; description does not explain lat/lon beyond the schema (no bounds, format, or default values). The description focuses on output and requirements but fails to add meaning to the input parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool is for 'data center site-scouting composite' and lists specific components (grid proximity, multi-source hazard, land cover, temperature history). Distinguishes from sibling tools like assess_property_hazard by mentioning the composite nature and required multi-source hazard.

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?

Explicitly mentions cost (PAID 300 credits), required authorization (Bearer <api_key>), and sufficient credits balance. Notes that multi-source hazard is required and same contract as assess_property_hazard. However, does not explicitly guide when to use this over other datacenter-related sibling tools like assess_site_due_diligence.

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

All gisgp 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many assess_* composite tools (datacenter, ev_charging, renewable, telecom, due_diligence) share the same building blocks of grid proximity, land cover, and terrain, making their boundaries fuzzy. assess_property_hazard_x402 also duplicates assess_property_hazard with only a payment-method difference, and bundle_* tools intentionally overlap with the free primitives they replace.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a mix of verb_noun tools (query_features, geocode_address), noun-first geometry tools (centroids_geojson, envelope_geojson), and inconsistent _geojson suffix usage (buffer_geojson, fix_geometry, geometry_stats). The assess_* and bundle_* prefixes offer some grouping, but no single naming pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 85 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server and far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools are convenience bundles or variants that could be consolidated, making the count a significant usability burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of GIS tasks: format conversions, GeoJSON analysis, FeatureServer query/inspection, geocoding, site assessment, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Excel-to-GeoJSON, no FeatureServer update/delete), but most missing functionality can be worked around by chaining existing tools.

Resources