Microburbs Australian Property Data

Postcode profile

postcodes_demographics_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

One-call profile of a postcode: how many suburbs it covers, population, dwellings, median age and incomes, rents, mortgages, and the mix of houses, flats and renters.

Coverage: All 2,642 postcodes we map to suburbs; population figures as at 2021-08-10. Current to 2021-08-10. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/postcode-profile.

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": {
      "postcode": "<postcode>"
    },
    "name": "postcodes_demographics_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Last period to include, same formats as `from`.
`from`	No	First period to include: 2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07 or 2020-07-01.
`fields`	No	Comma-separated subset of: suburbs_count, population, private_dwellings, occupied_private_dwellings, median_age, average_household_size, median_household_income_weekly, median_personal_income_weekly, median_rent_weekly, median_mortgage_repayment_monthly, rented_share_pct, separate_house_share_pct, flat_apartment_share_pct. Omit for all.
`postcode`	Yes	Four-digit postcode, e.g. `2026`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: a per-call price (5¢), a data vintage (2021-08-10) and the covered universe (2,642 mapped postcodes) — the cost model in particular is decision-relevant for an agent choosing how many calls to make.

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 measure list is front-loaded and earns its place as a capability summary; coverage, currency, doc pointer and price follow in a compact, scannable block. Slight redundancy between the opening field enumeration and the schema's field list, plus a markdown heading and bolded price, are minor.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, well-annotated, fully-described-schema tool, the description is mostly sufficient, and the doc link plus price fill real gaps. It leaves unaddressed how the from/to parameters behave for what appears to be a single-snapshot (2021-08-10) dataset, and says nothing about output for an unmapped postcode.

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%, with postcode format, from/to period formats and the full field enum already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's field naming roughly mirrors the enum but adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, and it never mentions the from/to period parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('One-call profile of a postcode') and enumerates the measures returned (population, dwellings, median age, incomes, rents, mortgages, dwelling mix), so an agent can tell this is the postcode-level demographic aggregate. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling profiles such as suburbs_profile or lga_profile, leaving differentiation to the name.

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: 'one-call profile' signals this is the go-to aggregate when you want many postcode measures at once. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over postcodes_economy_* siblings or suburbs_demographics_all, and no mention of behavior for postcodes with no suburb mapping despite the '2,642 postcodes we map' caveat.

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

All Microburbs Australian Property Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?