DC Hub Intelligence

Get Peering Intel

get_peering_intel

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess internet-exchange and peering density for a site via PeeringDB: retrieve nearby facilities, IX presences, and network counts to gauge how cheaply you can reach networks from here.

Instructions

Internet-exchange (IX/IXP) and peering density for a site, from PeeringDB. Pass lat+lon for the PEERING PROFILE around that point: facilities_nearby, a 0-100 score with its level, total_ix_presence, total_networks, and top_facilities each with ix_count and net_count — e.g. Ashburn comes back with 61 IX presences and 903 networks across the nearby sites, led by Equinix DC1-DC15 at 516 networks. Omit coordinates for the IXP directory (name, name_long, city, country, net_count, fac_count, media, protocols). This is the layer that answers "can I actually reach networks cheaply from here", which fiber route geometry does not: a site can sit on dense fiber and still be far from any exchange. The score is a DERIVED convenience over PeeringDB counts, not a DC Hub-sourced grade — cite the underlying counts (facilities, IX presence, networks) rather than the score when it is load-bearing. Records are PeeringDB's, refreshed on read. Answers "how good is peering at this Ashburn site" and "which internet exchanges serve the Dallas market". Try: get_peering_intel lat=39.04 lon=-77.48 — or get_peering_intel (no args) for the IXP directory. Do NOT use for fiber route geometry (get_fiber_intel), near-net carrier distance at a parcel (get_fiber_readiness), metro fiber depth (get_metro_fiber), or subsea landings (get_subsea_cables).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	No	Latitude of the site, e.g. 39.04 — with lon, returns the peering profile around it; omit both for the IXP directory
`lng`	No	Alias for lon — either name works
`lon`	No	Longitude of the site, e.g. -77.48
`limit`	No	Max results to return (1-500; default varies by tool)
`latitude`	No	Alias for lat — either name works
`longitude`	No	Alias for lon — either name works

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quota`	No	Caller quota state (remaining calls, tier) when available.
`_entity`	No	Payload class discriminator (e.g. facility\|market\|iso_grid\|queue_results\|deal\|report\|response) — branch on this before parsing the rest.
`citation`	No	Machine-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.
`provenance`	No	Collection-level provenance block: {source, method, as_of, verification_counts, cite_url_template, license, cite_as}. Quote the verification level when citing.
`_front_door`	No	In-band front-door hint (first workflow-entry tool of a session): call plan_query(intent) first for the ordered multi-step plan.
`_return_loop`	No	Suggested next-session delta call (get_changes since=24h) so you pull only what changed.
`site_evaluation_handoff`	No	Pre-built follow-up calls (analyze_site / get_water_risk args) when the payload carries coordinates — an array of {tool, parameters, why} entries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.12.10Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds provenance (PeeringDB records, refreshed on read) and an important caveat that the 0-100 score is a derived convenience rather than a DC Hub-sourced grade, advising the agent to cite underlying counts when load-bearing. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose and both modes are front-loaded, and the exclusion list is placed at the end. It is dense but somewhat repetitive (the derived-score caveat and example lat/lon invocations are restated), which keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still previews the key output fields (facilities_nearby, level, total_ix_presence, top_facilities). Combined with the data-source and mode guidance, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the lat/lon/limit/alias semantics are already fully documented in the schema, including the lat-else-directory behavior. The description adds example coordinates but no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (IX/IXP and peering density from PeeringDB) and a specific scope (per site, or the global IXP directory). It clearly separates itself from siblings by stating what layer of analysis it answers ('can I actually reach networks cheaply from here') that fiber geometry does not.

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 gives explicit mode selection rules (pass lat+lon for the peering profile, omit coordinates for the IXP directory), concrete example invocations, and a named exclusion list routing the agent to get_fiber_intel, get_fiber_readiness, get_metro_fiber, and get_subsea_cables. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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

Deploy Server