Skip to main content
Glama
azmartone67

DC Hub — Data Center & Energy Intelligence

by azmartone67
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
JavaScript
Remote

Site Selection Canvas

site_selection_canvas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Specify capacity, region, and deadline to get a ranked shortlist of US data-center markets with power headroom, time-to-power, and risk flags, plus a top pick with rationale.

Instructions

Guided end-to-end data-center site selection. Give a capacity target + geography + deadline and get a ranked shortlist of US markets (DCPI verdict, excess-power headroom, time-to-power, ISO) — and, with a paid key, the synthesis decision layer: the #1 pick, the why, a build sequence, and risk flags. One find->rank->shortlist->verdict call over the DC Hub Power Index. Try: site_selection_canvas capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24. Do NOT use for a single known parcel (use analyze_site) or an open-ended where-should-I-build question (use get_dchub_recommendation); this runs the full find to rank to shortlist to verdict flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of shortlist markets to return
regionNoGeography scope, e.g. a US state code like TX or a region like us/apac
verdictNoOptional DCPI verdict filter: BUILD, CAUTION, or AVOID
max_monthsNoMaximum acceptable time-to-power in months, 1-120, e.g. 24
capacity_mwNoTarget power load for the build in megawatts (MW), 1-5000, e.g. 100

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.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds the end-to-end flow ('One find->rank->shortlist->verdict call'), the paid-key requirement for the synthesis layer, and the US-market scope, going beyond the annotations 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?

Description is information-dense and front-loaded, covering purpose, example, and exclusions without fluff. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place by adding unique guidance.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers inputs, outputs, the paid tier, and alternative tools. It is complete for a guided end-to-end flow, leaving no major gaps.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by mapping inputs to 'capacity target + geography + deadline' and providing an example call (capacity_mw=100 region=TX max_months=24), which reinforces parameter usage.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Guided end-to-end data-center site selection' with concrete outputs (ranked shortlist, DCPI verdict, excess-power headroom, time-to-power, ISO). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming analyze_site and get_dchub_recommendation as alternatives for other use cases.

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 when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives ('Do NOT use for a single known parcel (use analyze_site) or an open-ended where-should-I-build question (use get_dchub_recommendation)') and a concrete invocation example, making the intended usage clear.

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