properties_basics_allThe physical facts about a dwelling in one call: bedrooms, bathrooms, parking spaces, dwelling type (house, unit, townhouse and so on) and land area in square metres.
Priced as the sum of the five individual calls. Ask for a single field instead if that is all you need.
Price: 23¢ per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gnaf_id | 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": "All property basics — beds, baths, parking, dwelling type, land area —\nin one call.\n\nEvery one of these comes from what the property was advertised with, so\na null is \"never advertised\" rather than \"zero\", and a property that has\nnever been listed comes back with all five null. Values are returned\nflat here (no per-field wrapper object, unlike the individual endpoints).",
- "example": {
- "bath_count": 2,
- "bed_count": 4,
- "dwelling_type": "house",
- "land_area_sqm": 814,
- "parking_count": 5
- },
- "properties": {
- "bath_count": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Bathrooms as advertised, whole number. Null = unknown, not zero.",
- "title": "Bath Count"
- },
- "bed_count": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Bedrooms as advertised. Null = unknown, not zero.",
- "title": "Bed Count"
- },
- "dwelling_type": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Dwelling kind in lowercase free text ('house', 'unit', 'townhouse', …), from the listing or the national address file. Not a closed set.",
- "title": "Dwelling Type"
- },
- "land_area_sqm": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Advertised land size in square metres (hectares converted for you), indicative rather than surveyed. Null = not stated; usual for units.",
- "title": "Land Area Sqm"
- },
- "parking_count": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Covered car spaces (garage/carport) as advertised — excludes open driveway and street parking. Null = unknown.",
- "title": "Parking Count"
- }
- },
- "title": "BasicsAll",
- "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[BasicsAll]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_BasicsAll_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable information: per-call cost (23¢) and that the price is the sum of the five component calls, which lets an agent reason about batching economics. It does not disclose error behavior for an invalid gnaf_id, so it is not a 5.
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?
Two short sentences plus a bold price line, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The cost is stated twice ('sum of the five individual calls' and 'Price: 23¢ per call'), a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.
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 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the five returned fields and the cost, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. The unresolved gaps are the meaning of the required gnaf_id and any failure mode for an unknown identifier.
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?
There is exactly one required parameter, gnaf_id, and schema description coverage is 0% — the schema says nothing about it. The description never mentions the identifier, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g. via geocode_address), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. This is close to the under-documented-parameter case.
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?
States a specific verb ('one call' retrieving physical facts) and enumerates the exact resource contents — bedrooms, bathrooms, parking, dwelling type, land area in sqm. It also explicitly frames itself as a bundle of the five sibling field-level tools, so an agent can distinguish it from properties_basics_bed_count, _bath_count, etc. without opening any schema.
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?
'Ask for a single field instead if that is all you need' gives a clear condition for choosing the narrow siblings over this bundle, and the pricing note reinforces the trade-off. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools or spelling out the reverse condition (use this when you need 2+ of the five fields), so it is clear context rather than exhaustive routing.
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.