properties_development_allWhat the planning scheme allows on this block: its zoning code and every planning overlay that touches it (heritage, flood, bushfire, height and so on, as published by the council).
Answers "can I build on it, and what is restricted". Development applications in the surrounding area are a suburb-level call.
Price: 8¢ 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 planning — zoning + overlays.",
- "example": {
- "zoning_code": {
- "category": "Residential Zones",
- "code": "R2",
- "name": "Low Density Residential"
- },
- "zoning_overlays": [
- {
- "layer": "hob",
- "value": "10 m"
- },
- {
- "layer": "hob",
- "value": "5.5 m"
- },
- {
- "layer": "hob",
- "value": "8.5 m"
- }
- ]
- },
- "properties": {
- "zoning_code": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "example": {
- "category": "Residential Zones",
- "code": "R2",
- "name": "Low Density Residential"
- },
- "properties": {
- "category": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Broader category bucket, e.g. 'Residential Zones', 'Business Zones'.",
- "title": "Category"
- },
- "code": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Parenthesised code (e.g. 'R2', 'B4', 'IN1') when the council's feed includes one. Many regional NSW + Adelaide + QLD councils don't — in which case this is null and the human-readable label is on `name`.",
- "title": "Code"
- },
- "name": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable zone class, e.g. 'Low Density Residential'.",
- "title": "Name"
- }
- },
- "title": "ZoningCode",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- },
- "zoning_overlays": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One planning overlay intersecting the property's buffer.\n\n``layer`` is the overlay family (e.g. ``\"fsr\"`` Floor Space Ratio,\n``\"hob\"`` Height of Building). ``value`` is the numeric/string\nvalue that overlay carries at this point (e.g. ``\"1.5\"`` for FSR\nor ``\"9.5\"`` for HoB metres).",
- "example": {
- "layer": "fsr",
- "value": "1.5"
- },
- "properties": {
- "layer": {
- "description": "Overlay layer code, e.g. 'fsr', 'hob'.",
- "title": "Layer",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "value": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Value at this point (e.g. '1.5' for FSR, '9.5' for HoB metres).",
- "title": "Value"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "layer"
- ],
- "title": "ZoningOverlay",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Zoning Overlays"
- }
- },
- "title": "PlanningAll",
- "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[PlanningAll]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_PlanningAll_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is relieved of that burden. It adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: an explicit 8¢ per-call cost, which materially affects an agent's call strategy on a paid API. It does not describe pagination or response richness, keeping it short of 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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what is returned, what question it answers, and what it costs. Front-loaded with the resource and free of filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does — zoning code and the overlay set with examples (heritage, flood, bushfire, height). The main gap is the undocumented gnaf_id, which an agent cannot resolve from the description alone.
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?
One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives the agent nothing about gnaf_id. The description gestures at identity ('this block') but never states that gnaf_id is a G-NAF property identifier or where to obtain one, leaving the parameter semantics thin.
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 resource (zoning code plus every planning overlay touching the block) and names the scope explicitly as a bundle. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling single-purpose tools properties_development_zoning_code and properties_development_zoning_overlays without opening either 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?
Frames the use case ('can I build on it, and what is restricted') and explicitly routes the adjacent question — development applications nearby — to a suburb-level call, i.e. the suburbs_development_* siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use for the bundle vs. the granular zoning siblings, but the routing guidance is clear.
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.