Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Microburbs Australian Property Data

by au.com.microburbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

State · Antidepressant use

states_health_antidepressant_use
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many people were dispensed an antidepressant each financial year from 2015-16 to 2024-25, as a count and per 1,000 residents, plus the prescriptions dispensed, for Australia and each state and territory.

Coverage: Australia and all 8 states and territories; financial years 2015-16 to 2024-25. Current to 2025-06-30. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/antidepressant-use.

Price: 5¢ 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": {
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "states_health_antidepressant_use"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLast period to include, same formats as `from`.
fromNoFirst period to include: 2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07 or 2020-07-01.
stateYesState or territory abbreviation: nsw, vic, qld, sa, wa, tas, act or nt.
fieldsNoComma-separated subset of: patients, patients_per_1000, prescriptions, prescriptions_per_1000. Omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a per-call price (5¢), a currency date (2025-06-30), and a pointer to `/v1/datasets/antidepressant-use` for full field list and method. It does not discuss result size or pagination, which keeps it below 5.

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?

The measure is front-loaded, followed by coverage, freshness, a documentation pointer and price — a sensible order for an agent scanning for fit. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence's 'each financial year from 2015-16 to 2024-25' and the coverage line repeating the same range. The bolded price line earns its place given it is a paid call.

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 burden of describing returns and does so concretely (count, per 1,000 residents, prescriptions dispensed). It covers scope, freshness, cost and a deep-link for the field list and methodology. The only shortfall is that response shape/pagination and the exact financial-year period syntax are not stated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 would be defensible, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: it establishes that periods are financial years bounded at 2015-16 to 2024-25, whereas the `from`/`to` examples are generic (2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07, 2020-07-01) and could mislead on a financial-year dataset. It also names the available measures in prose, matching the `fields` enum. It does not clarify how to express a financial year in `from`/`to`, leaving a small 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 first sentence names a specific measure (people dispensed an antidepressant), the unit (count and per 1,000 residents, plus prescriptions), the time grain (financial year, 2015-16 to 2024-25) and the geography (Australia and each state/territory). That is far more than a restated title. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly separate itself from the national sibling `australia_health_antidepressant_use`; saying it covers 'Australia and all 8 states and territories' actually blurs that boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The coverage statement ('Australia and all 8 states and territories; financial years 2015-16 to 2024-25') tells an agent when the data is applicable and what it can and cannot return, which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the national or drug-use siblings, and no stated prerequisites beyond the required `state` parameter. Usage must be inferred from the name and scope.

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 toolsInspect
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