DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

Get Power Availability Timeline

get_power_availability_timeline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get dated, state-level power capacity timelines: new generation vs retirements, with confidence-based splits and interconnection congestion context. See when supply lands.

Instructions

Power-availability TIMING for one US state — when power gets EASIER, year by year. Composes: new generation coming online from EIA-860M monthly, split by confidence class (under-construction vs planned vs testing — never blended); scheduled retirements as dated subtractions; LBNL interconnection-queue depth as congestion context (NO delivery dates — the feed has none and most queued MW never completes). The one derived number, cumulative_firm_signal_mw, counts ONLY under-construction+testing minus retirements — speculative permitting-stage MW is shown but never folded in. Answers "when is new capacity landing in Ohio", "what comes online in Georgia by 2027" with dated, sourced, per-lane-vintaged numbers. HONESTY LINE: supply-side signals, not a load-interconnection promise — generation ≠ deliverable load, and utility study timelines / large-load tariff processes / substation-grain delivery are declared out of coverage in constraint_coverage rather than estimated. Try: get_power_availability_timeline state=OH. Do NOT use for the raw project list (get_power_pipeline), live headroom today (get_grid_intelligence), queue survivors (get_refined_queue), or where-to-build ranking (rank_markets / ai_capacity_index) — this answers WHEN, for one state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mw`	No	Optional target MW for CONTEXT ONLY — echoed back with an explicit note; never converted into an energize-by date, which this data cannot honestly state
`state`	Yes	2-letter US state code (required), e.g. OH, GA, TX — the timeline grain; a state can span ISOs and the response reports ISO membership as context
`years`	No	Window in years from now, 1-6 (default 5)

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "state"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.3.20Aug 14, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / citation / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -{}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / citation / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / citation / description

Previous value: -"Machine-readable citation: how to attribute DC Hub (dchub.cloud) for this payload."New value: +"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."

removedOutput schema / properties / citation / properties
```
Removed value: -{}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / citation / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```

Addedv2.3.15Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral depth: confidence classes are 'never blended', the derived number counts only under-construction+testing minus retirements, speculative MW is 'shown but never folded in', and the tool declares out-of-coverage items rather than estimating them. This goes well beyond the annotations and sets honest expectations.

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 verbose but information-dense; every sentence earns its place by adding source-composition detail, derived-number semantics, example queries, or exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with an honesty line. The length is justified by the tool's compositional complexity, though it could be tightened.

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?

Given the annotations, a 100%-covered input schema, and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies scope, data sources, derived-number logic, confidence-class handling, exclusions, and honesty constraints. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result appropriately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning around 'year by year' and state-level timing, but the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain state, years, and mw's context-only behavior. The description does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Power-availability TIMING for one US state — when power gets EASIER, year by year.' It clearly differentiates from siblings with the explicit 'Do NOT use for' list naming get_power_pipeline, get_grid_intelligence, get_refined_queue, rank_markets, and ai_capacity_index. This is a resourced, scoped, and well-differentiated purpose statement.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete example questions ('when is new capacity landing in Ohio', 'what comes online in Georgia by 2027') and explicit when-not-to-use alternatives via the 'Do NOT use for' segment. It also clarifies the tool's scope boundary: it answers WHEN, for one state, not queue depth or ranking.

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

Deploy Server