Property · Parking-space count
properties_basics_parking_countParking-space count from the latest matching listing.
Price: 5¢ per call.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gnaf_id | Yes |
properties_basics_parking_countParking-space count from the latest matching listing.
Price: 5¢ 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": [
- {
- "example": {
- "parking_count": 5
- },
- "properties": {
- "parking_count": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Covered car spaces (garage/carport) as advertised. It does not count open driveway or street parking, so a house with a wide driveway and no garage can legitimately read 0 or null. Null means unknown.",
- "title": "Parking Count"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "parking_count"
- ],
- "title": "ParkingCount",
- "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[ParkingCount]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_ParkingCount_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it specifies the data source ('latest matching listing') and the cost ('5¢ per call'). However, the annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description's added behavioral info is limited to the listing lookup nuance and pricing. It does not disclose potential error conditions or response format.
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—one line plus the price—with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is arguably too terse to be fully useful; the brevity is appropriate but comes at the cost of missing essential details.
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?
Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what gnaf_id refers to, what 'latest matching listing' means, or what the return value looks like (e.g., an integer count). Without an output schema, these gaps leave the agent guessing about the response.
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 schema has zero description coverage for the sole parameter gnaf_id, and the description does not explain what this identifier is or how it is used. For a single-parameter tool, the description should at least indicate that gnaf_id identifies the property; it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 returns a parking-space count from the latest matching listing, specifying the resource (property) and the attribute (parking count). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like properties_basics_bath_count or bed_count, but the naming convention and the 'latest matching listing' qualifier make the intent reasonably clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as properties_basics_all or the other per-attribute basics tools. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
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.