Microburbs Australian Property Data

Terrain at the property

properties_environment_terrain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ground elevation, slope and the direction the land faces at one address, with how its slope ranks against the rest of its suburb and region.

Coverage: About 16 million addresses in every state and territory. Current to 2026-10-01. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/terrain-property.

Price: 3¢ 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_environment_terrain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	No	Comma-separated subset of: elevation_m, slope_deg, aspect_deg, slope_pctile_suburb, slope_pctile_sa4, resolution_m. Omit for all.
`gnaf_id`	Yes	GNAF address id, e.g. `GANSW704074813` (resolve an address with /v1/geocode/address).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing cost (3¢ per call), data coverage (~16 million addresses), and currency (current to 2026-10-01), which matter for budgeting and data-freshness decisions. It stops short of stating what happens for an unmatched gnaf_id or what the returned resolution means.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by short coverage, documentation, and price lines that each carry distinct information. The block structure (purpose, Coverage, link, Price) is easy to scan, though the mix of prose and metadata lines is slightly heavier than strict conciseness would demand.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (elevation, slope, aspect, percentile ranks) plus coverage and currency, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The absence of any guidance on the ranking context (suburb vs SA4) or edge cases is a modest gap.

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%, so both the gnaf_id and the fields subset (including allowed field names) are already fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no format, unit, or default detail beyond that, so the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and its measured attributes: ground elevation, slope, aspect, and the slope's percentile rank against the suburb and region, all at one address. The address-level scope implicitly separates it from the suburb- and mesh-block-level terrain siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing between this and sibling terrain tools, and no stated preconditions. Only an indirect hint exists in the schema's note that the required address id is resolved via the geocode endpoint, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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?