properties_valuation_land_valuesCouncil land valuations for the parcel — val_2021..val_2025 series with YoY change and $/sqm, plus lot area and zoning description.
Price: 15¢ 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": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "Council land valuations for the parcel — 5-year series + lot area + zoning.",
- "example": {
- "area_sqm": 714.5,
- "history": [
- {
- "price_per_sqm": 2449.27,
- "value": 1750000,
- "year": 2021
- },
- {
- "price_per_sqm": 3177.05,
- "value": 2270000,
- "year": 2022,
- "yoy_pct": 29.71
- },
- {
- "price_per_sqm": 2883.14,
- "value": 2060000,
- "year": 2023,
- "yoy_pct": -9.25
- },
- {
- "price_per_sqm": 3177.05,
- "value": 2270000,
- "year": 2024,
- "yoy_pct": 10.19
- },
- {
- "price_per_sqm": 3177.05,
- "value": 2270000,
- "year": 2025,
- "yoy_pct": 0
- }
- ],
- "land_value": 2270000,
- "zone_desc": "C4 - Environmental Living"
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_sqm": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Lot area (square metres).",
- "title": "Area Sqm"
- },
- "history": {
- "description": "Per-year valuation series, oldest first.",
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One year of the council land-valuation series.",
- "example": {
- "price_per_sqm": 3177.05,
- "value": 2270000,
- "year": 2025,
- "yoy_pct": 0
- },
- "properties": {
- "price_per_sqm": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Land value per square metre (AUD/sqm). Null when the lot area is unknown.",
- "title": "Price Per Sqm"
- },
- "value": {
- "description": "Council land value (AUD).",
- "title": "Value",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "year": {
- "description": "Valuation year.",
- "title": "Year",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "yoy_pct": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Change vs the previous valued year (%). Null on the first year or after a gap.",
- "title": "Yoy Pct"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "year",
- "value"
- ],
- "title": "LandValueYear",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "History",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "land_value": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Latest council land value (AUD).",
- "title": "Land Value"
- },
- "zone_desc": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Zoning description (e.g. 'R2 - Low Density Residential').",
- "title": "Zone Desc"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "history"
- ],
- "title": "PropertyLandValues",
- "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[PropertyLandValues]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_PropertyLandValues_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only, deterministic call. The description adds value by listing the exact data fields (YoY change, $/sqm, lot area, zoning) and the series years, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, such as data availability for all years or whether the query returns empty results for certain parcels, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
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?
The description is very concise, with two sentences. The first sentence lists the key data fields and the series name, which is immediately informative. The second sentence adds the pricing cue, which is relevant for cost-sensitive agents. No redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the essential data content.
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?
This is a simple, single-parameter read-only tool. The description, combined with annotationsainer, is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool returns and that it is safe to call. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how to interpret gnaf_id (e.g., where to get it) and whether the series always has all five years. Given the tool's simplicity and the output schema absence, a 3 is reasonable, but it could be improved with a note on data completeness or a hint to use geocoding tools to obtain gnaf_id.
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 one parameter (gnaf_id) with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not explicitly define what gnaf_id is or how to obtain it, but the parameter name is self-explanatory as a geographic identifier. Given that there is only one parameter and it is required, the description could have clarified that it is a unique parcel identifier, but the context of the tool makes it inferable. Thus, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns council land valuations for a specific parcel, with a 5-year series (val_2021..val_2025) including YoY change, $/sqm, lot area, and zoning. It identifies the resource (council land values) and the specific data fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar valuation tools like properties_valuation_value_series or properties_valuation_all, though the focus on land values is specific enough.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over properties_valuation_all or properties_valuation_value_series, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., needing a gnaf_id from geocoding). The only context is the price, which is not a usage guideline.
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.