Skip to main content
Glama
azmartone67

DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

Compare Sites

compare_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare 2-4 candidate data center parcels side-by-side across power, gas, fiber, market and risk, with a recommended pick and reasoning.

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). 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.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: it runs analyze_site on each parcel, ranks by overall score, and warns that the free tier returns a locked preview. It does not contradict the annotations; the read-only, idempotent nature is reinforced.

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 long but each sentence carries value: usage context, example, parameter details, return shape, tier warning, and exclusion rules. It is front-loaded with the primary use case, but the dense return-shape enumeration adds length; still no filler or repetition.

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 comparison tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers all usage boundaries, example input, output structure (sites, winner, rationale, citation), pricing behavior, and internal mechanics (runs analyze_site). The output schema further supports return-value understanding, so nothing essential is missing.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description repeats the key semantics (semicolon-separated lat,lon pairs; capacity in MW) and adds an example call and typical range (50-500). This is slightly helpful but largely redundant with the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Use when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels and wants a side-by-side winner picker.' It clearly states the tool compares parcels across power, gas, fiber, market & risk, returns a recommended pick and reason, and distinguishes itself from siblings (analyze_site, rank_markets) by naming them.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use when a user has narrowed to 2-4 candidate parcels' and 'Do NOT use for a single site (use analyze_site) or to rank entire markets (use rank_markets).' It also clarifies it runs analyze_site per parcel, making the delegation path clear.

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

Install Server

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