Skip to main content
Glama
aidc2026ai-melon

AIDC AI Design Engine

AIDC-AI.IO — MCP Connector

AI data center sizing, validation, and layout via a remote MCP server.
AI 데이터센터 자동화 툴: 결정론적 엔진으로 AI 데이터센터를 설계·검증·레이아웃합니다.

MCP Registry License


What is this?

This repository shows how to connect an MCP client or REST client to the AIDC-AI.IO Design Engine — a deterministic, source-backed engine that sizes, validates, and lays out Rubin-era AI data centers.

What the engine does (on the server):

  • Accepts an IT load, rack density, GPU generation (Hopper / Blackwell / NVIDIA Vera Rubin NVL72 / VR200), and site constraints.

  • Returns deployment-unit-snapped rack counts, design PUE, power-factor-backed total MVA (22.9 kV intake), liquid-cooling / air-cooling heat split, CDU planning values, cost (KRW), and timeline.

  • Validates designs against electrical, cooling, layout, safety, and data rules with severity-classified findings and RFIs.

  • Generates a rack-plan grid (hall dimensions, row/column positions in mm) and a site-block layout.

What this repo contains:

  • MCP client configuration snippet.

  • curl and Node.js examples that call the public REST projection (/api/agent/*).

  • An illustrative response so you know what fields to expect.

The core calculation engine, reference catalogs (rack library, AHJ/code matrix, 1.6T fabric topology, direct-to-chip (D2C) cooling models, etc.) are proprietary and remain server-side. No engine source is published here.

Korea live. Region-specific: 22.9 kV utility intake, Korean AHJ/code, climate, and operations validation. Keywords the engine targets: AI data center, AIDC, NVIDIA Rubin, Vera Rubin, 22.9kV, liquid cooling, CDU, D2C, 1.6T fabric, PUE.


Related MCP server: datacenter-mcp-server

MCP Server

Field

Value

Transport

Streamable HTTP

Endpoint

https://aidc-ai.io/api/mcp

Official registry name

io.aidc-ai/design-engine

Auth

None required (anonymous tier). Optional Authorization: Bearer aidc_live_<32hex> raises rate tier.

Tool count

3

Rate limit (anon)

10 req / hour on /api/agent/*

Tools

Tool

One-line description

design

Size an AI data center: returns rack count, PUE, total MVA, liquid/air cooling split, CDU count, cost (KRW), and build timeline.

validate

Check a design against electrical, cooling, layout, safety, and data rules; returns severity-classified findings and RFIs.

layout

Generate a rack-plan grid (hall dimensions, row/column positions in mm) and a site-block layout.


Quick Start

MCP client configuration

Add this to your MCP client config (e.g. Claude Desktop claude_desktop_config.json, Cursor MCP settings, or any Streamable HTTP client):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "aidc-design-engine": {
      "url": "https://aidc-ai.io/api/mcp"
    }
  }
}

The server is immediately usable without an API key. To raise the rate limit, add:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "aidc-design-engine": {
      "url": "https://aidc-ai.io/api/mcp",
      "headers": {
        "Authorization": "Bearer aidc_live_<your-32-hex-key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

Contact contact@aidc-ai.io for a registered or partner key.

Docker (local stdio server)

Build and run the same published MCP server used for registry evaluation:

docker build -t aidc-ai-mcp .
docker run --rm -i aidc-ai-mcp

The container communicates over stdio and connects to https://aidc-ai.io by default. No API key is required for the anonymous tier.


REST Usage

The MCP tools proxy to these REST endpoints (permissive CORS, same optional auth):

Tool

REST endpoint

design

POST https://aidc-ai.io/api/agent/design

validate

POST https://aidc-ai.io/api/agent/validate

layout

POST https://aidc-ai.io/api/agent/layout

Example: size a 30 MW Rubin-era AI data center

curl -s -X POST https://aidc-ai.io/api/agent/design \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "itLoadMw": 30,
    "rackDensityKw": 120,
    "gpuGen": "rubin",
    "siteAreaSqm": 5000,
    "region": "metropolitan",
    "options": {
      "redundancy": "n_plus_1",
      "coolingMode": "liquid",
      "pueTarget": 1.2
    }
  }'

Illustrative response

The JSON below is illustrative — field names and structure reflect the actual API shape, but exact numbers will vary by engine version and input. See design.response.example.json for the full object.

{
  "rackCount": 256,
  "rackCountRaw": 250,
  "pueDesign": 1.21,
  "mvaTotal": 45.8,
  "liquidCoolingLoadMw": 26.4,
  "airCoolingLoadMw": 3.6,
  "cduCount": 13,
  "totalCostKrw": 187500000000,
  "totalMonths": 28,
  "warnings": []
}

(30 MW IT / 120 kW per rack / Rubin / 5 000 m² / metropolitan / N+1 / liquid / PUE 1.2 target)


Tools — Input Reference

design

Size an AI data center from scratch.

Field

Type

Range / values

Required

itLoadMw

number

0 < x ≤ 1000

Yes

rackDensityKw

number

0 < x ≤ 500

Yes

gpuGen

string

"hopper" | "blackwell" | "rubin"

Yes

siteAreaSqm

number

0 < x ≤ 1 000 000

Yes

region

string

"metropolitan" | "regional"

Yes

options.redundancy

string

"n" | "n_plus_1" | "2n"

No

options.coolingMode

string

"air" | "hybrid" | "liquid"

No

options.pueTarget

number

1.0 – 2.5

No

Key response fields: rackCount, rackCountRaw, pueDesign, mvaTotal, liquidCoolingLoadMw, airCoolingLoadMw, cduCount, totalCostKrw, totalMonths, warnings[]


validate

Check a design against engineering rules.

{
  "rawInput": {
    "itLoadMw": 30,
    "rackDensityKw": 120,
    "gpuGen": "rubin",
    "siteAreaSqm": 5000,
    "region": "metropolitan"
  }
}

Key response fields: findings[] (each with severity, code, message), rfis[], passCount, warnCount, failCount


layout

Generate a rack plan and site block layout.

{
  "design": {
    "itLoadMw": 30,
    "rackDensityKw": 120,
    "gpuGen": "rubin",
    "siteAreaSqm": 5000,
    "region": "metropolitan"
  },
  "siteCentroid": { "lat": 37.5665, "lng": 126.9780 },
  "siteAreaSqm": 5000
}

Key response fields: rackPlan (hall dimensions, rows, columns, per-rack positions in mm), sitePlan (block-level layout in percentage coords)



License

This repository (examples and connector code only) is released under the MIT License.
The AIDC-AI.IO engine, reference catalogs, and all server-side logic remain proprietary.

Available Tools

1 tool
validateA

Validate a data center design against engineering rules (electrical, cooling, layout, safety, data). Returns severity-classified findings (blocking | warn | info) and RFI items. Provide EITHER designSummary (previously computed) OR rawInput (engine will size then validate).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawInputNoRaw design request. The engine will size first, then validate. Provide either this OR designSummary.
designSummaryNoPreviously computed design summary. Provide either this OR rawInput.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that rawInput triggers a 'size then validate' sequence. States return types (blocking/warn/info and RFI items). Does not mention permissions or side effects, but validation is inherently non-destructive.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first covers purpose and output, second covers usage guidelines. No redundancy, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core action.

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?

Adequately covers input modes and output types. No output schema, but the description lists what the tool returns. For a validation tool with two input paths, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. Minor gap: no detail on output structure beyond severity levels.

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 has 100% description coverage; individual parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., GPU generations, region types). Description adds high-level context: mutual exclusivity of parameters and how rawInput triggers sizing. Bridge between schema and usage is clear.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'a data center design against engineering rules'. Specifies rule categories (electrical, cooling, layout, safety, data) and describes output (severity-classified findings and RFI items). Differentiates between two input modes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to provide either designSummary or rawInput, with explanation of what each path does. No alternative tools exist, but the either-or guidance is clear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but sufficient given no siblings.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.1
    • Removeddesign
    • Addedvalidate
  2. 2 tool updates
    • Removedlayout
    • Removedvalidate
  3. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observeddesign
    • First observedlayout
    • First observedvalidate

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so no possibility of ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is not an issue. The name 'validate' is a clear verb indicating action.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for a domain like data center design is insufficient. The tool covers validation but omits other essential operations like design creation or modification.

Completeness2/5

The tool only provides validation, missing CRUD operations for designs, listing, or other lifecycle management. The domain suggests a need for more tools.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A physics engine for liquid-cooled GPU systems, exposed as an AI-callable MCP server. Enables thermal analysis, coolant comparison, flow optimization, and rack-level sizing via natural language queries.
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Provides professional-grade data center engineering calculations including cooling, power, GPU thermal optimization, UPS/battery sizing, tier classification, and commissioning workflows, compliant with ASHRAE and Uptime Institute standards.
    8
    19
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    What’s new on DC Hub MCP: seven focused pack endpoints so agents load only the tools for the job — siting, grid, fiber, deals, gas, site lookup, and OpenAI Deep Research (search+fetch). Full catalog still at https://dchub.cloud/mcp (90 tools). Live floors: 21,800+ facilities · 300+ markets · Pro $99/mo. Details: https://dchub.cloud/whats-new
    90
    2
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides deterministic, standards-based calculations for data center critical power infrastructure. Enables site selection, generator sizing, UPS sizing, NFPA 110 compliance, and more via 50+ AI agents and 8 compound chains.
    -