Property · Mobile black-spot overlay
properties_risks_mobile_black_spotRead-onlyIdempotent
Mobile-coverage black-spot overlay near the parcel.
Price: 2¢ per call.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gnaf_id | Yes |
Microburbs Australian Property Data
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
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": [ - { - "items": { - "additionalProperties": true, - "description": "One hazard overlay found near the property.\n\n**A record means the hazard exists within 1 km — read `on_property` to\nlearn whether it covers the property itself.** Every overlay is searched\ninside a 1 km circle around the address point, so the presence of a\nrecord on its own says only *there is mapped hazard land in this\nneighbourhood*. Most records are proximity hits: the property is not in\nthe zone. Never render \"a bushfire record came back\" as \"this property\nis bushfire-prone\" — check `on_property` first, and quote\n`nearest_distance_m` when it is false.\n\n`on_property` is tested against the address point (the geocoded location\nof the dwelling), not a surveyed parcel boundary, so a zone whose edge\nruns through the block can read false while still clipping the land. It\nis a strong indication, not a statutory answer: nothing here substitutes\nfor a planning certificate.", - "example": { - "area_level": "Layer", - "area_name": "Risk Layer", - "features_within_radius": 25, - "name": "Fire", - "nearest_distance_m": 0, - "on_property": true, - "search_radius_m": 1000, - "value": "On property" - }, - "properties": { - "area_level": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Constant `'Layer'` on property risks — a placeholder marking these as map-layer hits rather than statistics for a suburb or region. It is not a geographic level and carries no information; the suburb risk endpoints use this slot for a real one.", - "title": "Area Level" - }, - "area_name": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Constant `'Risk Layer'` on property risks. Like `area_level`, a placeholder that keeps the row shape consistent with area-based responses — not the name of any actual area, and not the name of the hazard (that is `name`).", - "title": "Area Name" - }, - "features_within_radius": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "integer" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "How many features of this overlay fall inside `search_radius_m`. Separates 'one stray polygon clips the corner of the neighbourhood' from 'the whole area is mapped'. Absent on public-housing records, where each record already is one Census area.", - "title": "Features Within Radius" - }, - "geojson": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "GeoJSON FeatureCollection of the hazard polygons for this overlay, ST_Intersection-clipped to a 1km-radius circle around the property and simplified for browser use. Present only when the request passes `?geojson=true`; absent (and the response byte-identical to before) otherwise.", - "title": "Geojson" - }, - "geojson_meta": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Clip / simplify / truncation metadata for `geojson` (clip_method='1km_radius', radius_m, simplify tolerance, coordinate precision, feature/byte caps, and whether the size cap truncated the output). Present only with `?geojson=true`.", - "title": "Geojson Meta" - }, - "name": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Which hazard this record is about — a fixed label per overlay, e.g. 'Fire', 'Flood', 'Historically Flooded', 'Landslide', 'Erosion', 'Heritage', 'Environment', 'HV Power Line', 'Mobile Black Spot', 'Public Housing'. Suitable for display as-is.", - "title": "Name" - }, - "nearest_distance_m": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "number" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "Metres from the property's address point to the nearest feature of this overlay, measured geodesically and reported to the whole metre. `0.0` exactly when `on_property` is true. When `on_property` is false this is how far away the hazard really is — a heritage record at 174 m and one at 950 m are both 'found', and only this field separates them. On public-housing records it is the distance to that record's Census area. Accurate to about 2% and biased very slightly long (it never under-reports the gap); at close range the error is sub-metre.", - "title": "Nearest Distance M" - }, - "on_property": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "boolean" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "**Whether the hazard actually covers this property**, as opposed to merely existing nearby. True when a feature of this overlay contains the property's address point. This is the field to gate any 'this property is in a flood/bushfire/heritage zone' statement on — record presence alone only means 'found within `search_radius_m`'.\n\nTwo overlays are line/point data rather than zones — HV power lines (`'HV Power Line'`) and mobile black spots (`'Mobile Black Spot'`) — and for those `on_property` is false for every property by construction; `nearest_distance_m` is the signal there. On public-housing records it marks the one Census area the property actually sits in.", - "title": "On Property" - }, - "search_radius_m": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "integer" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "The radius searched around the property, in metres (1000). Any record you receive was found inside this circle; anything beyond it was not looked for. Present so the presence rule is explicit rather than folklore.", - "title": "Search Radius M" - }, - "value": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "number" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "A display string summarising this record. On hazard overlays (fire, flood, landslide, erosion, heritage, environment, power lines, black spots) it states the containment result in words — `'On property'`, or `'Not on property; nearest 174 m away'`. It is prose for humans: parse `on_property` and `nearest_distance_m` instead. On public-housing records it is instead a preformatted percentage such as `'3.4%'` (see `value_unit`). Do not parse it as a number without checking `value_unit` first.", - "title": "Value" - }, - "value_unit": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ], - "description": "What `value` is measured in, and the flag for whether it is a number at all. Null on hazard overlays, whose `value` is the containment sentence. `'Properties Proportion'` on public-housing records, meaning `value` is the share of dwellings in a nearby small Census area that are public housing, written as a percentage string. Public housing can return several records — one per nearby Census area that clears a minimum share — so expect a list, not a single figure.", - "title": "Value Unit" - } - }, - "title": "RiskRecord", - "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[RiskRecord]]", - "type": "object", - "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_RiskRecord__" -}New value: +null
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the price constraint ('2¢ per call') and the 'near the parcel' spatial context, both useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what the overlay contains (geometry, list, boolean) or behavior when no black spot exists.
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 description is two short sentences, one for purpose and one for price, with no redundant phrases. The core function is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is a model of minimal, purposeful writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only a 12-word description, an agent lacks details about the response structure, the meaning of gnaf_id, and when to choose this over properties_risks_all. The price note is helpful, but the overall context is thin for a tool in a large family of risk overlays.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for gnaf_id, and the description does not define gnaf_id. The only hint is 'near the parcel', which implies the identifier refers to a parcel but does not explain its format or provenance. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.
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 'Mobile-coverage black-spot overlay near the parcel' clearly identifies the resource (mobile black-spot overlay) and its scope (near the parcel). It is readily distinguishable from sibling risk tools like properties_risks_flood or properties_risks_bushfire because it names a unique subject. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than an action.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like properties_risks_all or other risk overlays. The description does not state whether this is a standalone risk check or part of a broader risk assessment, nor does it mention exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.