Skip to main content
Glama
azmartone67

DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

Get Peering Intel

get_peering_intel
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check peering options at any location: get nearby facilities, IX presence, and network counts. Omit coordinates for a full internet-exchange directory.

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, policy/tech contacts). 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude of the site, e.g. 39.04 — with lon, returns the peering profile around it; omit both for the IXP directory
lngNoAlias for lon — either name works
lonNoLongitude of the site, e.g. -77.48
limitNoMax results to return (1-500; default varies by tool)
latitudeNoAlias for lat — either name works
longitudeNoAlias for lon — either name works

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.12.10

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses data provenance (PeeringDB, refreshed on read), that the 0-100 score is a derived convenience and not a DC Hub-sourced grade, and that the score should not be cited as load-bearing. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Long but dense, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place: mode semantics, output shape, an illustrative example, data provenance, a score caveat, concrete invocations, and exclusions. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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 with two modes, six parameters, and an output schema, the description covers invocation, output fields, source/freshness, score interpretation, and sibling routing. Return-value details are handled by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: coordinate presence toggles between the peering profile and IXP directory modes, aliases are illustrated, and a concrete example invocation is given. The limit parameter is already fully described in the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: IX/IXP and peering density for a site, sourced from PeeringDB. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_fiber_intel, get_fiber_readiness, get_metro_fiber, and get_subsea_cables as tools not to use, and it clarifies the dual-mode behavior (lat/lon profile vs IXP directory).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use instructions: pass lat+lon for the peering profile, omit coordinates for the IXP directory. It provides example invocations, example questions it answers, and a direct 'Do NOT use for' list naming specific alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools