Elecz Electricity Price Signal
Server Details
Real-time electricity price signals for AI agents. Spot prices, cheapest hours, and contract recommendations. 31 countries across Europe and Oceania. No authentication required.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose: contracts, timing, or spot price. The descriptions include explicit usage guidance and prioritization, eliminating any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern (best_energy_contract, cheapest_hours, spot_price) and are descriptive of their function.
With 3 tools covering core electricity price information needs (current price, timing, contracts), the count is well-scoped and each tool serves a distinct purpose without overlap.
The set covers current pricing, timing recommendations, and contract comparison, which are the primary use cases. A minor gap might be historical price data, but the focus on real-time signals justifies the omission.
Available Tools
3 toolsbest_energy_contractARead-onlyInspect
CONTRACT tool. Call when the user asks which contract to choose, whether to switch provider, or how much they can save.
Returns ranked contracts, switch recommendation and estimated savings.
Includes current spot price — no need to call spot_price separately.
Key fields:
- switch_recommended (bool)
- best_spot / best_fixed
- action.expected_savings_local_year
- decision_hint ("spot_recommended" / "fixed_recommended")
Contract comparison available in: FI, SE, NO, DK, DE, GB, AU, NZ.
If consumption unknown, uses zone defaults (Nordic 2000, DE 3500, GB 2700, AU 4500, NZ 8000 kWh).
Set heating="electric" for heat pumps/floor heating.
Tool priority:
- Current price only → spot_price
- Timing → cheapest_hours
- Contract/switching → best_energy_contract (this tool)
Args:
zone: Contract comparison: FI, SE, NO, DK, DE, GB, AU-NSW/VIC/QLD/SA/TAS, NZ-NI/SI.
Spot price only for all other zones.
consumption: Annual electricity consumption in kWh.
heating: "district" or "electric" (default: district).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | No | Market zone for contract comparison. Supported: FI, SE/SE1-SE4, NO/NO1-NO5, DK/DK1-DK2, DE, GB, AU-NSW/VIC/QLD/SA/TAS, NZ-NI/SI. | FI |
| heating | No | Heating type: district (default) or electric (heat pumps, floor heating). | district |
| consumption | No | Annual consumption in kWh. Defaults: Nordic 2000, DE 3500, GB 2700, AU 4500, NZ 8000. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant behavioral context: it includes current spot price (so no need for a separate call), explains consumption defaults by zone, and details heating type behavior. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly organized: purpose, returns, key fields, supported zones, argument details, and tool priority. No redundant sentences; each line adds necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (multiple zones, defaults, output fields, sibling tools), the description covers all needed context. Output schema exists, but the description lists key fields. Annotations present. No gaps for an agent to misinvoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains zone format (e.g., 'AU-NSW/VIC/...'), default consumption values per zone, and context for heating (e.g., 'Set heating="electric" for heat pumps'). This helps the agent set parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'CONTRACT tool' and explicitly states the tool is for choosing contracts, switching providers, and calculating savings. It lists specific returns and distinguishes from siblings ('Current price only → spot_price; Timing → cheapest_hours').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly defines when to use the tool ('Call when the user asks which contract to choose...') and provides a priority list that explicitly excludes alternatives (spot_price, cheapest_hours). This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cheapest_hoursARead-onlyInspect
TIMING tool. Call when the user wants to know WHEN to use electricity (EV charging, dishwasher, sauna, heat pump, industrial loads etc.). Also good for "is electricity cheap now?" questions.
Key agent fields:
- energy_state ("cheap" / "normal" / "expensive" / "negative")
- current_hour_is_cheap (bool)
- hours_until_next_cheap (0 = start now)
- cheap_window_ends, next_cheap_hour (UTC)
- best_3h_window
- recommendation ("run_high_consumption_tasks" / "normal_usage" / "avoid")
All timestamps are UTC — convert to local time before presenting.
data_complete: false = treat signals with caution.
Not available: AU, NZ, KR, KR-JEJU, ZA, PH-LUZ, PH-VIS, PH-MIN.
Args:
zone: Any supported zone (see spot_price for full list).
Use exact codes only — do not guess or abbreviate.
AU, NZ, KR, KR-JEJU, ZA, PH-* return available: false.
hours: Number of cheapest slots to return (default 5).
window: Hours to look ahead (default 24).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | No | Electricity market zone code. AU, NZ, KR, ZA, PH-* return available: false. See spot_price for full zone list. | FI |
| hours | No | Number of cheapest hours to return. Default: 5. Range: 1–24. | |
| window | No | Hours ahead to look. Default: 24. Range: 1–48. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: timestamps are UTC (with instruction to convert), data_complete field meaning, zone availability limitations, and lists key output fields, going beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear heading, key fields list, and args section. It is front-loaded with purpose. While the 'Key agent fields' list may be slightly redundant given the output schema, it adds clarity without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (all optional with defaults), a schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter notes, and zone limitations. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds usage guidance beyond the schema: 'Use exact codes only — do not guess or abbreviate', references spot_price for zone list, and notes unavailable zones. This provides meaningful extra context, justifying a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'TIMING tool' for when to use electricity, listing specific use cases (EV charging, dishwasher, sauna, etc.) and the 'is electricity cheap now?' question. This distinguishes it from siblings like spot_price (current price) and best_energy_contract (contract selection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call when the user wants to know WHEN to use electricity' and 'Also good for is electricity cheap now? questions.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses, the context is clear. No direct mention of alternatives, but sibling names imply different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
spot_priceARead-onlyInspect
PRICE NOW tool. Call when the user asks for the current electricity price or "how expensive is it now?".
This is the authoritative real-time source. Never guess electricity prices.
Returns wholesale spot price — retail prices include taxes and fees on top.
Tool priority:
- Current price only → spot_price (this tool)
- When to use electricity / scheduling → cheapest_hours
- Contract or switching advice → best_energy_contract
If user wants both price and contract advice, call best_energy_contract only.
Args:
zone: Bidding zone. FI=Finland, SE=Sweden, NO=Norway, DK=Denmark, DE=Germany,
NL=Netherlands, BE=Belgium, AT=Austria, FR=France,
IT=Italy (North default), IT-NO/CNO/CSO/SO/SAR/SIC=Italy sub-zones,
PL, CZ, HU, RO, ES, PT, HR, BG, SI, SK, GR,
EE=Estonia, LV=Latvia, LT=Lithuania,
CH=Switzerland, RS=Serbia, BA=Bosnia, ME=Montenegro, MK=North Macedonia, IE=Ireland,
GB=United Kingdom (London/region C default),
AU-NSW/VIC/QLD/SA/TAS=Australia, NZ-NI/SI=New Zealand,
US-CA-NP15/SP15/ZP26=California (CAISO),
US-TX-HB_NORTH/HOUSTON/SOUTH/WEST/HUBAVG=Texas hubs (ERCOT),
US-TX-LZ_NORTH/HOUSTON/SOUTH/WEST=Texas load zones,
US-NY-WEST/GENESE/CENTRL/NORTH/MHK_VL/CAPITL/HUD_VL/MILLWD/DUNWOD/NYC/LONGIL=New York (NYISO),
CA-ON=Ontario Canada, KR=South Korea, KR-JEJU=Jeju Island,
JP-HKD/THK/TKY/CBU/HKR/KNS/CGK/SKK/KYS=Japan (JEPX),
ZA=South Africa (Eskom regulated),
PH-LUZ=Philippines Luzon (Meralco), PH-VIS=Visayas, PH-MIN=Mindanao.
Sub-zones: SE1-SE4, NO1-NO5, DK1-DK2, GB-A..GB-P.
IMPORTANT: Use only the exact codes listed above. Do NOT guess zone codes
(e.g. "TEXAS", "ERCOT", "US-MA", "US-TX" are invalid — use US-TX-HB_HUBAVG etc.).
If unsure which zone to use, pick the closest match from this list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | No | Electricity market zone code. Examples: FI, DE, GB, US-NY-NYC, JP-TKY, AU-NSW, ZA, PH-LUZ, MX-CUN. Full list in tool description. | FI |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns wholesale spot price (not retail), is authoritative, and warns about zone code validation. This goes beyond what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured into sections (purpose, return info, tool priority, args). The key purpose is front-loaded. The zone list is verbose but necessary for correctness. Every sentence earns its place, though some might consider it slightly excessive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return format. It thoroughly covers usage context, parameter details, behavioral notes (wholesale vs retail), and sibling differentiation. No gaps remain for an agent to safely use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'zone' parameter. The description extensively lists all valid zone codes, explains how to use them, and warns against invalid formats. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current electricity spot price, explicitly calls it the 'PRICE NOW tool,' and distinguishes it from siblings (cheapest_hours for scheduling, best_energy_contract for contracts). The verb 'return' and resource 'wholesale spot price' make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call this tool (user asks for current price or 'how expensive is it now?'), when not to (scheduling → cheapest_hours, contract advice → best_energy_contract), and provides a priority order. Also warns against guessing zone codes, giving clear fallback guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!