Skip to main content
Glama
azmartone67

DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

Compare Sites

compare_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2-4 data center parcels side-by-side across power, gas, fiber, market, and risk, and get a recommended winner with the reason why.

Instructions

Use when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels and wants a side-by-side winner picker across power, gas, fiber, market & risk — with a recommended pick and the reason. Runs the analyze_site read on each parcel and ranks them by overall score. Example: "Compare a Phoenix parcel and an Ashburn parcel for a 50MW build — which wins and why?" — compare_sites locations="33.45,-112.07;39.04,-77.48" capacity_mw=50. Params: locations is a semicolon-separated list of "lat,lon" pairs (2-4 max); capacity_mw is the target load in MW (e.g. 50-500) and is forwarded to every site — each carries its own capacity_context; it does NOT move overall_score, so the winner is picked on location suitability, not on your requested load. Returns (full, paid): {sites:[{lat, lon, capacity_requested_mw, overall_score (0-100 composite), interpretation (verdict string, e.g. "Excellent site"), scores{power_infrastructure, gas_pipeline_access, fiber_connectivity, market_conditions, risk_resilience — each 0-100}, nearby{substations_50km, power_plants_80km, gas_pipelines_50km, facilities_100km, fiber_carriers_in_state, generation_capacity_mw, total_capacity_mw}, fiber{connectivity_score, carrier_count, nearest_carrier_km, near_net_bucket, single_carrier_risk, top_carriers[{carrier, distance_km}]}, power_cost, location}], winner:{lat, lon, overall_score, why}, decision_rationale, citation}. Each site carries the same shape analyze_site returns. compare_sites is a paid/Pro tool — the free tier returns a locked preview, not the comparison. Do NOT use for a single site (use analyze_site) or to rank entire markets (use rank_markets).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sitesNoAlternative to locations: an array of {lat, lon} (or {lat, lng}) objects, 2-4 sites
locationsNoSemicolon-separated list of 2-4 "lat,lon" pairs to compare, e.g. "33.45,-112.07;39.04,-77.48"
capacity_mwNoTarget power load for the build in megawatts (MW), e.g. 50 (typical 50-500)

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.
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by saying it runs the analyze_site read. It adds non-obvious behavior: capacity_mw is forwarded to each site but does not affect overall_score, and it discloses that the tool is paid/Pro with a locked free-tier preview.

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 well organized, with usage context, an example, parameter guidance, return details, and exclusions. It is longer than strictly necessary because it restates a detailed return shape even though an output schema exists, but the extra detail is structured and useful.

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 tool of this complexity, the description covers when to use it, what it does, parameter behavior, output characteristics, paid-tier restrictions, and explicit alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains the locations semicolon delimiter and 2-4 limit, gives a typical capacity_mw range, and clarifies that capacity_mw does not influence the ranking. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting the 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?

The description states a precise scope: a side-by-side winner picker for 2-4 candidate parcels, ranking by overall score with a recommended pick and reason. It clearly differentiates from analyze_site and rank_markets, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels and wants a comparison, and provides a concrete example. It also gives clear exclusions: do not use for a single site (use analyze_site) or to rank entire markets (use rank_markets), leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/azmartone67/dchub-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server