Microburbs Australian Property Data

Property · Condition by mesh block — renovation signals from listings within 1 km (by gnaf_id)

properties_mesh_blocks_condition

Read-onlyIdempotent

What condition are the homes in? For every mesh block around the property, how its listings describe the homes: renovated, updated kitchens and bathrooms, renovation potential, original features, air conditioning, and how many listings the shares are read from.

One entry per mesh block within 1,000 m of the property under mesh_blocks, nearest first, each with its mb_code, distance_m, population and dwellings. Blocks across suburb lines are included. Values only — the polygons come from /properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks.

Every field carries provenance — measured (at this block), measured_wider_area (measured for the SA1 or postcode and repeated on every block in it), estimate (our model) or not_recorded (not labelled yet) — plus how, one sentence on how the number was arrived at (empty when not_recorded).

Price: 20¢ 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_mesh_blocks_condition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gnaf_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), the description discloses cost (20¢ per call), sort order (nearest first), that blocks across suburb lines are included, and a four-value provenance taxonomy with a `how` explanation field. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing a paid call, none of which appear in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the question the tool answers, then scope, then output shape, then provenance semantics, then price — a sensible ordering with little waste. The provenance paragraph is dense but each clause (measured / measured_wider_area / estimate / not_recorded) earns its place by preventing misreading of the numbers.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it lists the wrapper key, per-block fields (mb_code, distance_m, population, dwellings), ordering, and provenance/how metadata. Missing are pagination or result-count limits and failure behavior for an invalid gnaf_id, which matter for a metered call.

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?

Only one parameter (gnaf_id) and the schema carries no description for it. The description implies gnaf_id is the property identifier that anchors the 1,000 m search and that the radius is fixed rather than adjustable, which is useful. It adds no format, source, or validation guidance for the identifier itself.

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 the specific resource (condition/renovation signals from listings, aggregated per mesh block within 1 km of a property identified by gnaf_id) and its leading question frames the intent. It also distinguishes itself from the polygon endpoint by noting values only come from here while geometry comes from /properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks. It stops short of naming the suburb-level counterpart, so the property-vs-suburb distinction is only implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage context is clear: this is the per-property, 1 km-radius view of listing-derived condition signals, and the agent is explicitly routed elsewhere for polygons. There are no explicit exclusions telling the agent when not to use it (e.g., when a suburb-wide rollup would be cheaper or more 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?