Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Microburbs Australian Property Data

by au.com.microburbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Property · Development overlays at this point

properties_development_zoning_overlays
Read-onlyIdempotent

Height-of-building (hob) and floor-space-ratio (fsr) limits that cover the property's address point. Held for NSW only; elsewhere, and where none applies, the response is the "no data" envelope.

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": {
      "gnaf_id": "<gnaf_id>"
    },
    "name": "properties_development_zoning_overlays"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gnaf_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput 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": {
-            "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"
-        }
-      ],
-      "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[ZoningOverlay]]",
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_ZoningOverlay__"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: a geographic restriction to NSW, the exact empty-result behavior, and a per-call price. Only the shape of a successful payload (beyond the two field names) is left undisclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences: data scope first, then coverage caveat, then price. No filler. The only minor inefficiency is that the price line sits apart from the coverage caveat rather than being folded in.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and one parameter, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, where it is available, what an empty result looks like, and cost. It would be fully complete if it clarified the gnaf_id input, the one thing an agent must supply correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required gnaf_id parameter, so the description carries the full burden – yet it never explains what gnaf_id is, its format, or how to obtain it. 'The property's address point' only loosely gestures at the identifier.

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 names a concrete verb/resource pair – height-of-building (hob) and floor-space-ratio (fsr) limits covering the property's address point – so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling properties_development_zoning_code, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

It gives useful applicability guidance – NSW-only, no-data envelope elsewhere or when nothing applies – which tells the agent when the result will be empty. It never states when to choose this over the zoning_code or suburbs-level zoning siblings, so the alternative-selection guidance stays implied.

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 toolsInspect
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