Skip to main content
Glama

plan_fiber_leadin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan diverse fiber lead-in routes from a data center site to a carrier hotel, with indicative build cost and route diversity analysis. Answers how many routes, distance, cost, and shared corridors.

Instructions

Plan N diverse, road-following fibre lead-in routes from a candidate data-center site to a carrier hotel / POP, with indicative build cost and a route-diversity read. Answers "can I get N diverse fibre routes into this site, how far, how much, and where do they share a corridor?". Example: plan_fiber_leadin from="250 Paringa Road, Murarrie QLD" to="20 Wharf Street, Brisbane City QLD" n=4. Params: from (lat,lng OR street address), to (lat,lng OR address — e.g. a NextDC/Equinix POP), n (1-6 routes, default 4), fibre ("720F"|"1440F"), bore_m (river/rail bore length in metres, optional). Returns per-route length_km + GeoJSON geometry, total_route_km, diversity {min_separation_m_midhaul, shared_street_km}, and indicative cost {capex_usd, opex_usd_yr}. INDICATIVE auto-routed road corridors — NOT engineered alignments; subject to survey, DBYD and carrier confirmation. Do NOT use for a single site-suitability score (use analyze_site) or fibre-provider footprints (use get_fiber_intel).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nNoNumber of diverse routes to plan, 1-6 (default 4)
toNoDestination carrier hotel/POP as "lat,lng" OR an address, e.g. "20 Wharf Street, Brisbane City QLD"
fromNoOrigin site as "lat,lng" OR a street address, e.g. "250 Paringa Road, Murarrie QLD"
fibreNoFibre count spec for cost estimate: "720F" or "1440F"
bore_mNoRiver/rail bore length in metres to add to the route, 0-100000 (optional)
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: routes are 'INDICATIVE auto-routed road corridors — NOT engineered alignments; subject to survey, DBYD and carrier confirmation.' It also details output structure, going beyond 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 a single dense paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides example, param details, output notes, and caveats. Efficient but could be slightly more structured. Still, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does (per-route length, GeoJSON, total cost, diversity). Given the tool's complexity and annotations, the description covers key aspects adequately. A small gap: it doesn't specify that the output is a list of objects, but the description implies per-route info.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides an example with specific values and explains the format for 'from' and 'to', and lists other params. This adds value beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 function: 'Plan N diverse, road-following fibre lead-in routes...with indicative build cost and a route-diversity read.' It answers a specific question and distinguishes from siblings like analyze_site and get_fiber_intel.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use: 'Do NOT use for a single site-suitability score (use analyze_site) or fibre-provider footprints (use get_fiber_intel).' This provides clear alternatives and context.

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