Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

LGA · Households and families

lga_area_stats_households
Read-onlyIdempotent

Household and family make-up: lone-person, family and group households, household size, couples with and without children and one-parent families, for every suburb and council area.

Coverage: About 10,600 suburbs and localities and 545 council areas across Australia, in all states and territories (areas with too few residents for reliable figures are left out); one snapshot at 10 August 2021. Current to 2021-08-10. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/households.

Price: 5¢ per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lga_name": "<lga_name>"
    },
    "name": "lga_area_stats_households"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLast period to include, same formats as `from`.
fromNoFirst period to include: 2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07 or 2020-07-01.
fieldsNoComma-separated subset of: total_households, total_families, family_households_count, family_households_pct, non_family_households_count, non_family_households_pct, lone_person_households_count, lone_person_households_pct, size_1_person_count, size_1_person_pct, size_2_people_count, size_2_people_pct, size_3_people_count, size_3_people_pct, size_4_people_count, size_4_people_pct, size_5_people_count, size_5_people_pct, size_6_plus_people_count, size_6_plus_people_pct, couple_no_children_count, couple_no_children_pct, couple_with_children_count, couple_with_children_pct, one_parent_families_count, one_parent_families_pct, other_families_count, other_families_pct, couple_children_under_15_count, couple_children_under_15_pct, one_parent_children_under_15_count, one_parent_children_under_15_pct, couple_families_count, couple_families_pct. Omit for all.
lga_nameYesCouncil (LGA) name exactly as /v1/lga/list returns it, e.g. `Lake Macquarie`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world status. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: per-call price (5¢), limited geographic coverage with an explicit reliability exclusion rule, a fixed 2021-08-10 snapshot, and a documentation path for method/field details. It does not describe result structure or pagination, but the fixed-snapshot and pricing disclosures are notable additions.

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?

The most decision-relevant content (what the metrics are) leads, followed by coverage, snapshot, doc link, and price. Minor waste: 'Current to 2021-08-10' restates the snapshot date already given in the same sentence.

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, the description compensates by stating the metric families covered, the geographic universe, the temporal snapshot, and a documentation path for full field definitions. The main residual gap is that it never clarifies that results are LGA-level only despite the phrase 'for every suburb and council area'.

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%, and the schema already enumerates every field name for `fields`, the accepted date formats for `from`/`to`, and the exact-match requirement for `lga_name`. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond a general pointer to the full field list, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific data resource (household and family make-up: lone-person, family, group households, size, couples with/without children, one-parent families) with an explicit verb-less but clear 'returns stats about' framing. It is distinguishable from topical siblings like lga_area_stats_income_by_birthplace. However, the phrase 'for every suburb and council area' blurs the LGA-vs-suburb boundary that the tool name and the sibling suburbs_area_stats_households imply.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through coverage scoping (about 10,600 suburbs, 545 council areas, areas with too few residents excluded) and a snapshot date, which helps an agent decide whether the data fits. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the sibling suburb-level tool, so routing between geo levels is left to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources