Skip to main content
Glama

rank_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank candidate sites by weighted objectives with hard constraints, returning top N normalized scores to identify the best fit.

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 (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
objectivesYesWeighted objectives {field: signedWeight} — +weight maximizes, -weight minimizes. e.g. {"water_stress": -0.6, "fiber_km": -0.4}
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).
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 significant behavioral context: deterministic normalization, handling of missing objectives (weight renormalization, not silent), dropping unknown candidate ids with declaration, absolute vs percentile scoring mechanics, and candidate contract details. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is thorough and well-structured with clear sections (SCORING MECHANICS, CANDIDATE CONTRACT) and front-loaded main purpose. While lengthy, the complexity of the tool (8 parameters, nuanced scoring) justifies the detail; nearly every sentence adds value with minimal redundancy.

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?

Despite lack of output schema, the description fully explains workflow, candidate preparation, scoring mechanics, edge cases (missing objectives, expired ids, incomplete candidates), and return fields (rank, objective_score, normalized, normalization_basis). It covers all aspects needed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: explains signed weights in objectives, behavior of absolute and percentile parameters (including which fields work for percentile), preferred format for candidates, and the trade-off for require_complete. This enriches understanding significantly.

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 it performs deterministic multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints, explicitly says 'Use for pick the best N sites under constraints', and distinguishes from siblings analyze_site and get_refined_queue. The verb 'rank' and resource 'sites' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: '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.' Also details how to pass candidates (using candidate_id from get_refined_queue) and explains alternatives like shortlist_name.

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