mcp.xynaptic

energy-interconnections

Xynaptic Energy Interconnections FR — live French cross-border power flows (RTE official): England, Italy, Germany-Belgium, Switzerland, Spain. GET ?date=YYYY-MM-DD. Usage: Use for cross-border flows only. For French consumption or generation mix use energy-demand; for spot prices use energy-price (add ?region=fr for France). Not for non-French borders — this covers France only. [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	query parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / params / required
```
Added value: +[]
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "params"
+]
```

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / body

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / params / description

Previous value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"

addedInput schema / properties / params / properties

Added value: +{
+  "borders": {
+    "description": "example: 6",
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "date": {
+    "description": "example: \"2026-10-02\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "net_import_mw": {
+    "description": "example: -10246",
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[]
```

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the HTTP method (GET), the query format, and crucially the cost model ($0.020 per call, x402/USDC payment). It omits return payload shape and rate-limit/error behavior, but the payment context is unusually valuable information that an agent otherwise could not infer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: resource identification, then endpoint, then routing rules, then exclusions. Every clause is functional, though the bracket-tagged pricing note reads as an afterthought appended to the end.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the endpoint pattern, coverage, cost, and routing alternatives. It does not sketch the response shape or units (MW, net imports), which is a minor remaining gap for a data-retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the date format ('?date=YYYY-MM-DD') and mentions ?region=fr for the sibling tool, adding only marginal detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (live cross-border power flows) with scope (France, RTE official) and enumerates the exact borders covered. An agent can immediately distinguish it from energy-demand and energy-price without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'for French consumption or generation mix use energy-demand; for spot prices use energy-price'. Also states a negative condition ('Not for non-French borders — this covers France only'), so both when and when-not are covered.

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

All mcp.xynaptic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?