Elecz Electricity Price Signal API
Server Details
Real-time electricity prices for AI agents. 40+ countries, 100+ zones. No auth required.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- zemloai-ctrl/elecz-api
- GitHub Stars
- 1
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: best_energy_contract for contract/switching advice, cheapest_hours for timing/scheduling, spot_price for current price. Descriptions include tool priority guidance, eliminating ambiguity.
Names use a consistent snake_case and descriptive style. However, they are not strictly verb_noun (e.g., 'best_energy_contract' is adjective_noun_noun), which is a minor deviation from the most predictable pattern.
Three tools is a perfect scope for an electricity price signal API. Each tool provides essential functionality without being too few or too many.
The set covers core user needs: current price, timing, and contract advice. A minor gap might be lack of historical data or detailed price components, but the given domain is well-served.
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: yksi seuraavista —
"spot_recommended" matala kulutus, spot on halvin pitkällä aikavälillä
"consider_fixed" korkea kulutus + koholla oleva spot, fixed antaa varmuutta
"stay_spot" spot-hinta juuri nyt matala, kannattaa pysyä spotissa
"compare_options" ei selkeää suositusta, vertaile itse
"switch_recommended" laskettu säästö > 50 EUR/v vaihtamalla
"spot_price_only" ei sopimusvertailua (KR/JP/MX/US-zonet) — vain hinta näytetään
"regulated_tariff" säädelty tariffi (ZA/PH), ei vaihtomahdollisuutta
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?
Description reveals key behaviors: returns ranked contracts, includes spot price, details decision_hint values. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. No contradictions. Some details like rate limits or auth are omitted, but given read-only nature, it's adequate.
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 and front-loaded with purpose and conditions. Each section (returns, key fields, decision_hint, priority, args) serves a purpose. Slightly long but not wasteful; every sentence earns its place.
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's complexity (zones, defaults, decision_hint values), the description covers key aspects thoroughly. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. No major gaps; heating and consumption defaults are explained.
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 description adds significant value: explains zone's dual role (contract comparison vs. spot price only), provides default consumption values per zone, and clarifies when to use heating='electric'. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.
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's purpose: recommending contracts, switching advice, and savings. It distinguishes from siblings via a 'Tool priority' section that explicitly routes current price queries to spot_price and timing queries to 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?
Guidelines are explicit: when to call 'when user asks which contract to choose, whether to switch, or how much they can save.' The priority list clearly separates this tool from siblings. Context on defaults and heating type is provided, but no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the sibling distinctions.
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?
Adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: timestamps are UTC (convert to local), data_complete: false indicates caution, and lists unsupported zones. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.
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?
Extremely concise and well-structured: starts with tool label, usage context, key fields, then important notes. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?
Given three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, response fields, timestamps, data completeness, and zone restrictions. Fills all gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
Adds value over 100% schema coverage by specifying zone code requirements ('use exact codes only') and clarifying that certain zones return available: false. Hours and window descriptions reinforce defaults but are somewhat redundant with 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?
Description clearly identifies as a timing tool for electricity usage, listing specific use cases like EV charging and dishwasher. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'when' to use, not on pricing or 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?
Explicitly states when to call (user wants to know when to use electricity, or if electricity is cheap now) and notes unavailable zones. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context from siblings is sufficient.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'wholesale spot price — retail prices include taxes and fees on top' and that it is the 'authoritative real-time source'. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations, but could be improved by mentioning update frequency or any rate limits.
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 sections for purpose, usage guidance, priority, and parameter details. It front-loads the main intent. However, the zone list is very long and somewhat verbose; a shorter reference or link could improve conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
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 only one parameter with complete schema coverage, adequate annotations, and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it vs alternatives, return value nature (wholesale vs retail), and precise parameter values. No gaps remain.
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 the zone parameter already described. The tool description adds extensive, precise guidance on zone codes, listing many valid codes and explicitly warning against invalid guesses like 'TEXAS' or 'US-MA'. This goes far beyond the minimal schema description, ensuring correct parameter usage.
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', with a specific verb ('get current price') and resource ('electricity spot price'). It also distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Current price only → spot_price' versus 'cheapest_hours' and 'best_energy_contract'.
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 provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Current price only → spot_price', 'When to use electricity / scheduling → cheapest_hours', 'Contract or switching advice → best_energy_contract'. It also warns not to guess prices and instructs to call best_energy_contract only if both price and contract advice are needed.
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!