Skip to main content
Glama
azmartone67

DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

Rank Sites

rank_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare and rank candidate data-center sites under hard constraints and weighted objectives, returning top-N normalized scores with declared missing data.

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.
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far more than annotations: deterministic behavior, fail-closed constraints, weight renormalization, missing_objectives declaration, relative vs absolute normalization fallback, stale candidate handling, and require_complete exclusion behavior. Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavioral context without contradicting them.

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 long, but it is information-dense and front-loaded with purpose and usage before mechanics. Some details are repeated across description sections and the schema (e.g., objective semantics), but given the tool's complexity and nuanced scoring contract, the length is justified.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description complements it with return-field semantics (rank, objective_score, normalized, normalization_basis, missing_objectives, objective_status, excluded_incomplete, candidate_contract). It also covers input sourcing, edge cases, and autonomous workflow recommendations, making the definition complete 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 coverage is 100%, but the description goes well beyond the schema: it explains signed weights with concrete examples, absolute vs percentile semantics, shortlist objective reuse, the candidate_id contract from get_refined_queue, and fail-closed constraint behavior. This materially helps an agent construct correct invocations.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('multi-site ranking/optimization under constraints'), names the exact output entity (_entity=ranked_sites), and differentiates itself from siblings like analyze_site and get_refined_queue. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from nearby alternatives.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is stated: '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 explains when to use candidates vs shortlist_name, and when percentile vs absolute is appropriate. This is model behavior for routing an agent to the correct tool and call pattern.

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

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