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 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes with no overlap. 'best_energy_contract' helps users choose electricity contracts, 'cheapest_hours' identifies optimal times to use electricity, and 'spot_price' provides current real-time pricing. Each tool addresses a different aspect of electricity cost optimization without any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent adjective_noun pattern: 'best_energy_contract', 'cheapest_hours', and 'spot_price'. This creates a predictable and readable naming convention throughout the toolset, making it easy for agents to understand what each tool does based on its name.
Three tools is reasonable for an electricity pricing/contract comparison server, though slightly minimal. The tools cover core use cases (contract selection, timing optimization, current pricing), but additional tools for historical data or more detailed comparisons could enhance the surface. The count doesn't feel excessive or insufficient.
The toolset covers the essential electricity cost optimization domain well: contract comparison, timing advice, and current pricing. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for historical price trends or detailed provider comparisons beyond contracts, but agents can accomplish core tasks without significant workarounds.
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 | FI | |
| heating | No | district | |
| consumption | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it details the return payload structure (trust scores, costs, savings, links), clarifies the limitation to 'top 3' results, and explicitly states 'final contract choice remains with the user' — critical scope disclosure for a recommendation tool.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose/returns/usage/args) and front-loaded value. Minor structural redundancy with two consecutive 'Returns...' sentences that could be consolidated, but every sentence provides distinct 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?
Comprehensive for a 3-parameter search tool with no output schema. The description fully documents inputs (despite empty schema), explains return values (rankings, scores, savings), provides usage examples, and acknowledges behavioral limits (top 3 only).
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?
Fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by documenting all three parameters in the Args section: zone includes valid enum values (FI, SE, NO, DK, DE), consumption includes units (kWh) and conditional defaults (zone-dependent), and heating includes options and default.
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 opens with the specific action 'Find top 3 cheapest electricity contracts' (verb + resource + scope), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like spot_price or cheapest_hours which focus on prices rather than contract recommendations.
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?
Provides explicit 'Use when asked:' section listing three specific query patterns that trigger usage. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., distinguishing from spot_price for current market rates rather than contract comparisons).
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).
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 | FI | |
| hours | No | ||
| window | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read). Description adds substantial return value structure: 'sorted cheapest hours', 'best 3-hour consecutive window', 'hours to avoid', and 'automation recommendation'. Compensates for missing output schema by detailing what the response contains.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, return value, usage triggers, and args. Front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence serves the goal of tool selection. Length is appropriate for 3-parameter tool with no output schema.
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?
No output schema exists, but description explicitly details return structure (sorted hours, windows, recommendations). All parameters documented despite 0% schema coverage. Given read-only nature and clear scope, description is complete.
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 has 0% description coverage (only titles). Description fully compensates by documenting all 3 parameters: 'zone' includes valid enum values (FI, SE, NO, DK, DE), 'hours' explains semantics and default (5), 'window' explains lookahead semantics and default (24).
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?
Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'cheapest electricity hours' + scope 'next 24 hours'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'spot_price' (raw pricing data) by focusing on analysis and optimization recommendations for specific appliances/EV charging.
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 lists when-to-use scenarios: 'when is electricity cheapest today', 'when should I charge my EV', 'run the dishwasher or washing machine', and 'optimize home automation'. Provides concrete user intents that trigger tool selection.
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.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | No | FI |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: return format (EUR c/kWh and local currency), data provenance (ENTSO-E Transparency Platform), and update frequency (hourly)—critical information for a real-time data tool.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, return values, data source, usage triggers, and parameter docs. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly informal for a description field but efficiently packs necessary details. No redundant sentences.
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?
For a simple 1-parameter read-only tool without output schema, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, its format, source, and freshness—sufficient for the agent to understand the full interaction contract.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates via the 'Args:' section. It defines 'zone' as a 'Bidding zone' and provides complete value mappings (FI=Finland, SE1-SE4, etc.), effectively serving as the parameter documentation.
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?
Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'electricity spot price' + scope 'Nordic or German zone' clearly defines the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'best_energy_contract' and 'optimize' by focusing on raw current data rather than recommendations or optimizations.
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?
Provides explicit natural language triggers: 'Use when asked: what is the electricity price now...' with specific country examples. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives, but the purpose differentiation is clear enough to imply usage boundaries.
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!