Skip to main content
Glama
azmartone67

DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

Rank Sites

rank_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank and select optimal data-center sites under hard constraints and weighted objectives. Normalize and score analyzed candidates to compare across sites and pick the top N.

Instructions

Deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints — the normalization contract that lets you compare sites across separate analyze_site calls WITHOUT dropping into code. Pass candidates you already enriched (each an object with lat/lng + metric fields like risk_resilience, water_stress, fiber_km — pull these from analyze_site + get_refined_queue and pass site_evaluation_handoff through untouched), hard constraints, and weighted objectives; get back entity=ranked_sites: top_k ranked with rank, objective_score, per-field normalized{} (0-100 relative to the set), and normalization_basis. objectives use SIGNED weights: +weight maximizes a field (e.g. risk_resilience:1), -weight minimizes it (e.g. water_stress:-0.6, fiber_km:-0.4). constraints are hard filters, fail-closed on a missing field. Use for "pick the best N sites under constraints"; for one site use analyze_site; to get the candidate set first use get_refined_queue. SCORING MECHANICS (2026-07-11): a candidate missing a validated objective is weight-RENORMALIZED over the objectives it carries and the gap is DECLARED in missing_objectives (never silently scored 0); a candidate carrying none scores null and ranks last. percentile=true fields without a population baseline fall back to RELATIVE in-batch scoring (basis reported per-objective in objective_status). CANDIDATE CONTRACT: candidates may be {candidate_id: "cand…"} entries from get_refined_queue — frozen identity (lat/lng/capacity_mw/fiber_km/iso) loads from the mint, your metrics overlay the rest; expired/unknown ids are dropped AND declared in candidate_contract, never re-resolved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_kNoHow many top-ranked sites to return (1-50, default 3)
absoluteNofalse (default) = min-max normalize within THIS batch (best-in-set, NOT stable across runs). true = score on a FIXED 0-100 scale for CROSS-RUN-STABLE, auditable scores — use ONLY when the objective fields are already 0-100 (analyze_site scores like risk_resilience/fiber_connectivity), not raw distances like fiber_km
candidatesNoArray of candidate objects. PREFERRED: {candidate_id: "cand_…", <your metric fields>} using ids from get_refined_queue — frozen coordinates/capacity/fiber_km load from the mint (zero transcription drift), your enrichments (e.g. overall_score from analyze_site) overlay. Legacy: {id?, lat?, lng?, <metric fields>} flat objects also work. Omit if using shortlist_name
objectivesNoWeighted objectives {field: signedWeight} — +weight maximizes, -weight minimizes. e.g. {"water_stress": -0.6, "fiber_km": -0.4}. Omit with shortlist_name to reuse the shortlist's saved objectives; required with candidates
percentileNotrue = score each objective as its PERCENTILE against the viable-site POPULATION ("better than X% of viable sites") — the strongest cross-run + cross-region comparability. Works for fields with a maintained baseline (analyze_site metrics: overall_score, risk_resilience, fiber_connectivity, power_infrastructure, market_conditions, gas_pipeline_access, fiber_km, power_cost); other fields fall back to absolute (listed in unbaselined_fields). Takes precedence over absolute
constraintsNoHard filters {field: {min?, max?}} — a candidate missing a constrained field is dropped (fail-closed). e.g. {"risk_resilience": {"min": 70}, "estimated_ttp_months": {"max": 34}}
shortlist_nameNoAlternative to candidates: re-rank a SAVED shortlist (created via save_to_shortlist) in one shot — loads its sites (scoped to your API key) + reuses their saved objectives if you pass none, and re-scores against the current baseline
require_completeNotrue = DROP any candidate missing one or more of your (validated) objectives — dropped candidates are DECLARED in excluded_incomplete, never silent. Default false keeps incomplete candidates ranked on their carried objectives with missing_objectives flagged. Recommended true for autonomous take-rank-1 workflows (an incomplete candidate can otherwise top the ranking on its single best metric).

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.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds extensive behavioral context without contradiction: deterministic scoring, fail-closed constraints, weight-renormalization for missing objectives with declared missing_objectives, percentile fallback to relative in-batch scoring, and expired candidate ids being dropped and declared. This is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot convey.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is densely structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, scoring mechanics, and candidate contract. Every sentence carries necessary operational detail—no filler—and it is front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling redirections.

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?

This is a complex tool with normalization, constraints, fallbacks, and candidate contract nuances. The description fully addresses these, referencing return fields like ranked_sites, objective_score, normalized{}, and normalization_basis, and explicitly covers edge cases (missing objectives, fail-closed drops, expired ids). The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for this behavioral context, and the description delivers it.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds critical operational semantics beyond the schema: signed weights (+max/−min), fail-closed constraint behavior, percentile baseline precedence, and the two candidate input forms (candidate_id from get_refined_queue vs legacy flat objects). It also gives concrete examples like objectives and constraints, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 opens with 'Deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints' and explicitly scopes it as the 'normalization contract' to compare sites across separate analyze_site calls. It also distinguishes from siblings by directing single-site analysis to analyze_site and candidate set retrieval to get_refined_queue, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'Use for "pick the best N sites under constraints"; for one site use analyze_site; to get the candidate set first use get_refined_queue.' It also covers the alternative shortlist_name workflow, describes when to use absolute vs percentile scoring, and explains the candidate contract from get_refined_queue.

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