Microburbs Australian Property Data

Property · Crime by mesh block — estimated rates and rank in suburb within 1 km (by gnaf_id) (beta)

properties_mesh_blocks_crime

Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta. The figures behind this topic have not been validated against an independent source, so it is not sold at the same confidence as the other mesh-block topics. Every response says beta: true and carries a beta_notice.

Is this place safe? Estimated crime rates for every mesh block around the property — all crime and eight types, per 100,000 residents a year — with where each block sits among the blocks in its suburb and nationally. From our mesh-block crime model, calibrated in November 2026 so each area's blocks add up to what police recorded there.

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_crime"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gnaf_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: beta status with the `beta: true` and `beta_notice` response fields, the November 2026 calibration basis, the provenance taxonomy (measured / measured_wider_area / estimate / not_recorded) with the `how` explanation, and a 20¢ per-call cost. That is exactly the kind of trust and cost information an agent cannot get from 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The beta warning is front-loaded before any other claim, then the question, the values returned, the ordering, the provenance rules, and the price follow in a tight sequence. Length is justified by the density of distinct facts, with no filler sentences.

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 it well: entry count, nearest-first ordering, per-entry fields (mb_code, distance_m, population, dwellings), rate units, rank dimensions, and provenance semantics. The one remaining gap is how to acquire a gnaf_id, and the exclusion note about suburb-boundary blocks covers the main edge case.

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, has 0% schema description coverage; the description identifies it as the property identifier and confirms it anchors the 1,000 m radius, but never explains its format or how an agent obtains one. Since the single undocumented parameter is the sole required input, the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a precise verb, resource, and scope: estimated crime rates for every mesh block within 1,000 m of a property, with suburb and national ranks. The radius-from-property anchoring distinguishes it from the suburb-level crime siblings without ambiguity, and it explicitly points to /properties/{gnaf_id}/context/mesh-blocks for polygons rather than duplicating that tool.

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?

It frames the use case directly ("Is this place safe?") and implicitly scopes the call to a single property's surroundings, then routes polygon needs to a different endpoint. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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?