lga_profileLGA's parent chain — state + GCCSA. LGAs aren't strictly nested in SA4 so the upward chain stops there.
Price: 3¢ per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lga_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "available": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "`false` on no-data responses. Omitted on success — branch on `data !== null` if you want a single discriminator.",
- "title": "Available"
- },
- "data": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "description": "LGA's parent chain — state + GCCSA. LGAs aren't strictly nested\nin SA4 so the upward chain stops at state.",
- "example": {
- "gccsa": "Rest of NSW",
- "lga": "Lake Macquarie",
- "state": "NSW"
- },
- "properties": {
- "gccsa": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Greater Capital City Statistical Area.",
- "title": "Gccsa"
- },
- "lga": {
- "description": "LGA name.",
- "title": "Lga",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "state": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "State / Territory abbreviation.",
- "title": "State"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "lga"
- ],
- "title": "LgaProfile",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value."
- },
- "message": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable explanation. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Message"
- },
- "reason": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Machine-readable slug naming the no-data condition (e.g. `no_avm_for_GANSW704074813`). Stable per endpoint. Omitted on success.",
- "title": "Reason"
- }
- },
- "title": "ApiResponse[LgaProfile]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_LgaProfile_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that the hierarchy stops at state/GCCSA rather than continuing through SA4, and it discloses the per-call cost of 3 cents. It does not overpromise or contradict the annotations.
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 extremely tight: two substantive sentences plus a pricing note. The key output scope and the important SA4 nesting caveat are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place without fluff or repetition.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, what is deliberately not returned, and the cost. There is no output schema, but the description conveys the core response shape well enough. It is slightly light on input-format guidance, but the overall tool is simple.
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?
The input schema only defines lga_name as a required string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description indirectly indicates that the parameter is an LGA identifier by describing the tool as returning the LGA's parent chain, but it does not specify expected format, examples, or how names are resolved. For a single self-descriptive parameter this is adequate but not detailed.
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 identifies the resource—LGA's parent chain—and the expected output scope: state plus GCCSA, with SA4 explicitly excluded. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', so it stops just short of a fully specific statement, but it is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like lga_list or sa4_profile.
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 implies when to use the tool: when an LGA's upward geographic parent chain is needed. The caveat that LGAs are not strictly nested in SA4 gives useful usage context and sets an expectation about what this tool will not provide, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.