properties_profileResolve a GNAF to its full ABS Statistical Geography Standard hierarchy (Mesh Block → SA1 → SA2 → SA3 → SA4 → GCCSA → State) plus the parallel admin chain (LGA, suburb (SAL), postcode). Call this once to get every ABS key the rest of the data layers index on.
Price: 3¢ 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": "Full ABS geo hierarchy for a property — the \"where in ABS world\nis this?\" lookup. Mesh block, SA1–SA4, GCCSA, state, LGA, suburb\n(SAL), postcode. Useful before pulling mesh-block-aggregated layers.",
- "example": {
- "gccsa": "Australian Capital Territory",
- "lga": "Unincorporated ACT",
- "mesh_block": "80111103200",
- "postcode": "2902",
- "sa1": "80101102001",
- "sa2": "Kambah",
- "sa3": "Tuggeranong",
- "sa4": "Australian Capital Territory",
- "state": "ACT",
- "suburb": "Kambah (ACT)"
- },
- "properties": {
- "gccsa": {
- "description": "Greater Capital City Statistical Area.",
- "title": "Gccsa",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "lga": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Local Government Area.",
- "title": "Lga"
- },
- "mesh_block": {
- "description": "ABS Mesh Block code.",
- "title": "Mesh Block",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "postcode": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Postcode (POA).",
- "title": "Postcode"
- },
- "sa1": {
- "description": "SA1 code.",
- "title": "Sa1",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "sa2": {
- "description": "SA2 name.",
- "title": "Sa2",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "sa3": {
- "description": "SA3 name.",
- "title": "Sa3",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "sa4": {
- "description": "SA4 name.",
- "title": "Sa4",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "state": {
- "description": "State / Territory.",
- "title": "State",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "suburb": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Suburb (SAL — ABS Suburb and Locality).",
- "title": "Suburb"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "mesh_block",
- "sa1",
- "sa2",
- "sa3",
- "sa4",
- "gccsa",
- "state"
- ],
- "title": "PropertyProfile",
- "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[PropertyProfile]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_PropertyProfile_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable operational context: the price per call (3¢) and the scope of the response (full hierarchy and admin chain), which go beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences plus a price note, with the primary function front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place. The price is clearly highlighted at the end, making it easy for the agent to notice.
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?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, the scope of the return (hierarchy and admin chain), and cost. It does not detail the exact output fields or error handling, but for a profile tool that returns a known set of ABS keys, this is likely adequate. The mention of 'every ABS key' provides sufficient context for the agent.
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?
The schema has only gnaf_id with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Resolve a GNAF' explicitly indicates that gnaf_id is a GNAF identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. While it does not specify the format or origin of the GNAF, for a single required parameter this is sufficient.
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 verb (resolve) and resource (GNAF) with a clear outcome: the full ABS Statistical Geography Standard hierarchy and parallel admin chain. It distinguishes from siblings like geocode_address by focusing on the comprehensive geo-profile rather than a single geocoding result. The phrase 'Call this once to get every ABS key' reinforces its purpose as the one-stop tool for ABS keys.
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?
The description clearly implies usage: use it when you need the full ABS hierarchy for a given GNAF. The explicit 'Call this once' suggests it is the primary method for that need, but it does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.