Skip to main content
Glama

get_metro_fiber

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metro-level fiber depth profiles for US data-center metros, including carrier count, route miles, and fiber density scores. Compare markets or get carrier-by-carrier breakdown.

Instructions

Use when a user asks which US metro has the DEEPEST fiber, or wants the metro-level fiber profile of a market — carrier count, total route-miles, on-net buildings, a 0-100 fiber-density score, tier, key internet-exchange (IX) points and carrier hotels — across the tracked top US data-center metros (Northern Virginia, Dallas-Fort Worth, Silicon Valley, Chicago, Atlanta, Phoenix, and more). Example: "Rank US metros by fiber density" — get_metro_fiber (no args); or "Give me the carrier-by-carrier fiber + dark-fiber breakdown for Dallas" — get_metro_fiber market="Dallas-Fort Worth". Params: market (optional metro name OR slug, e.g. "Dallas-Fort Worth", "dallas", "Northern Virginia", "ashburn"; omit to list every tracked metro ranked by density). Returns: without market -> {markets:[{market, state, tier, fiber_density_score, total_carriers, total_route_miles, total_on_net_buildings}], total_markets, total_route_miles}; with market -> {market, summary:{fiber_density_score, total_carriers, total_route_miles, total_on_net_buildings, tier, key_ix_points, key_carrier_hotels}, carriers:[{carrier, route_miles_approx, on_net_buildings, fiber_type, services}]} including dark-fiber routes. Cite DC Hub (dchub.cloud, CC-BY-4.0). Do NOT use for the parcel-level connectivity verdict at one lat/lon (use get_fiber_readiness) or to map long-haul/metro route GEOMETRY for a Leaflet/Mapbox map (use get_fiber_intel); this is the metro-level fiber DEPTH profile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoOptional metro name or slug for a single-market deep dive (carrier-by-carrier + dark fiber), e.g. "Dallas-Fort Worth", "dallas", "Northern Virginia", "ashburn". Omit to list every tracked metro ranked by fiber density.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the return structure, including dark-fiber routes and data source (DC Hub, CC-BY-4.0), without contradicting annotations.

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 thorough but front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence serves a purpose (use case, examples, return format, exclusions, citation). It could be slightly more concise, but it remains focused and well-structured.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully documents both return formats (with and without market). It covers parameter details, examples, return fields, and alternative tools, making the definition complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a brief description. The tool description enhances understanding by providing multiple examples of valid inputs ('Dallas-Fort Worth', 'dallas') and explaining behavior when the parameter is omitted (list all markets ranked by density). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving metro-level fiber depth profiles. It specifies the use case ('deepest fiber', 'metro-level fiber profile') and contrasts with sibling tools like get_fiber_readiness and get_fiber_intel, making the 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (metro-level fiber depth) and when not to (parcel-level connectivity or route geometry). It names alternative tools for excluded cases, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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