mbs_listMesh-block codes inside a suburb. sal is required for now —
nationwide / by-LGA / by-SA3 listings will land later when there's
a story for the large payloads (a single LGA can hit a few
thousand mesh blocks).
Price: 3¢ per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sal | Yes | Required. Suburb (SAL) to list mesh blocks for. |
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": [
- {
- "items": {
- "description": "One row in the MB directory — code + the suburb / state it\nsits in (so the customer can read it back without a profile\nround-trip).",
- "example": {
- "mb_code": "10434270000",
- "state": "NSW",
- "suburb": "Belmont North"
- },
- "properties": {
- "mb_code": {
- "description": "ABS Mesh Block code.",
- "title": "Mb Code",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "state": {
- "description": "State / Territory abbreviation.",
- "title": "State",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "suburb": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) the MB sits in.",
- "title": "Suburb",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "mb_code",
- "suburb",
- "state"
- ],
- "title": "MeshBlockListItem",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value.",
- "title": "Data"
- },
- "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[list[MeshBlockListItem]]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_MeshBlockListItem__"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable context: the requirement that 'sal' is currently the only supported scope, the pricing (3¢ per call), and a payload-size warning for LGAs. These go beyond the structured annotations and are useful for the agent.
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 concise: two sentences plus a price line. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a constraint and a cost note. There is no fluff or redundant 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?
The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, annotations cover safety). The description covers purpose, constraint, and price. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of codes), but that is largely inferable from the name and context. Adequate for the complexity.
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 100%, so the parameter 'sal' is already described as a required suburb code. The description repeats this requirement without adding format, examples, or further semantics. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.
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 lists mesh-block codes for a given suburb, with a specific verb implied by the title and reinforced by the description. It distinguishes from siblings like mbs_profile (single mesh block) and suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks (geometry) by noting the suburb-scoped listing and the current limitation to SAL.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that other scopes (nationwide/LGA/SA3) are not yet available, which is a constraint, not a usage recommendation. There is no mention of sibling tools or conditions for selecting this one.
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.