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 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: best_energy_contract for contract switching advice, cheapest_hours for optimal usage timing, and spot_price for current price. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case format with descriptive, action-oriented names (best_energy_contract, cheapest_hours, spot_price), following a predictable pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for the domain of electricity price signals, covering the core aspects (price, timing, contracts) without being excessive or insufficient.
The set provides complete coverage for the stated purpose: real-time price (spot_price), usage scheduling (cheapest_hours), and contract evaluation (best_energy_contract). No obvious gaps for typical user queries.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but description adds significant context: key return fields, supported regions, default consumption values, heating parameter effect, and that it includes spot price. No contradictions.
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 purpose, return description, key fields, regions, defaults, and tool priority. The opening 'CONTRACT tool.' is slightly redundant, but overall efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Covers parameters, return fields, behavior, defaults, and sibling differentiation. Lacks explicit output format or examples, but given no output schema, the key fields list provides adequate guidance.
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 description coverage is 0%, but description adds full meaning for all three parameters: zone lists supported values and explains spot-only zones; consumption explains defaults; heating explains 'electric' for heat pumps. Compensates completely.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns ranked contracts, switch recommendation, and estimated savings. It specifies when to call ('user asks which contract to choose') and distinguishes from siblings by listing tool priority.
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 provides tool priority list: 'Current price only → spot_price, Timing → cheapest_hours, Contract/switching → best_energy_contract'. Also notes it includes current spot price, eliminating need for spot_price.
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 | FI | |
| hours | No | ||
| window | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: key fields returned, UTC timestamps needing conversion, data_complete flag meaning treat with caution, and zone-specific return values. No contradictions.
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?
Description is clear and well-structured with sections: purpose, key fields, notes, args. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could trim some redundancy.
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?
Despite no output schema, description lists return fields and provides enough context for correct usage: zone limitations, meaning of data_complete, UTC conversion advice, and args. Comprehensive for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
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 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: zone (supported zones and restrictions), hours (number of cheapest slots), window (look ahead hours). It adds default values and clarification on exact zone codes.
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?
Description clearly states it is a timing tool for electricity usage, specifying when to use (e.g., EV charging, heat pump) and answers 'is electricity cheap now?' questions. It distinguishes from sibling tools (best_energy_contract, spot_price) by focusing on timing and 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?
Explicitly says when to call (for cheapest hours, cheap state queries) and lists unsupported zones. It provides caution about data_complete flag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like spot_price instead.
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 | FI |
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 no contradiction. The description adds context: 'Returns wholesale spot price — retail prices include taxes and fees on top.' No mention of rate limits or auth, but given annotation coverage, this is sufficient.
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, usage, tool priority, parameter list). The zone list is lengthy but necessary. Could be slightly more concise, but front-loaded with key 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?
No output schema, and description only says 'Returns wholesale spot price' without specifying the response format (e.g., currency, unit, time interval). For a simple current-price tool, this is a minor gap. Sibling tools are well-differentiated.
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 0%, but the description thoroughly documents the single parameter 'zone' with an extensive list of valid codes, warnings against guessing, and a default. Compensates fully for the minimal schema.
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 explicitly states 'PRICE NOW tool' and 'Call when the user asks for the current electricity price or "how expensive is it now?".' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'cheapest_hours' (scheduling) and 'best_energy_contract' (contracts).
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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidelines: 'Current price only → spot_price', 'When to use electricity / scheduling → cheapest_hours', 'Contract or switching advice → best_energy_contract'. Also states if user wants both, call best_energy_contract only.
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!