Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

Suburb · Ancestry

suburbs_area_stats_ancestry
Read-onlyIdempotent

Where each ancestry group lives: counts and shares for 29 ancestries (English, Irish, Chinese, Indian, Lebanese and more) in every suburb and council area.

Coverage: About 11,000 suburbs and localities and 545 council areas across Australia, in all states and territories (areas with too few residents for reliable figures are left out); one snapshot at 10 August 2021. Current to 2021-08-10. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/ancestry.

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": {
      "suburb_name": "<suburb_name>"
    },
    "name": "suburbs_area_stats_ancestry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLast period to include, same formats as `from`.
fromNoFirst period to include: 2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07 or 2020-07-01.
fieldsNoComma-separated subset of: total_population, australian_count, australian_pct, aboriginal_count, aboriginal_pct, english_count, english_pct, irish_count, irish_pct, scottish_count, scottish_pct, welsh_count, welsh_pct, german_count, german_pct, dutch_count, dutch_pct, french_count, french_pct, italian_count, italian_pct, greek_count, greek_pct, maltese_count, maltese_pct, spanish_count, spanish_pct, polish_count, polish_pct, russian_count, russian_pct, hungarian_count, hungarian_pct, croatian_count, croatian_pct, serbian_count, serbian_pct, macedonian_count, macedonian_pct, chinese_count, chinese_pct, indian_count, indian_pct, filipino_count, filipino_pct, vietnamese_count, vietnamese_pct, korean_count, korean_pct, sri_lankan_count, sri_lankan_pct, lebanese_count, lebanese_pct, south_african_count, south_african_pct, new_zealander_count, new_zealander_pct, maori_count, maori_pct, samoan_count, samoan_pct, other_ancestry_count, other_ancestry_pct, not_stated_count, not_stated_pct. Omit for all.
suburb_nameYesSuburb name exactly as /v1/suburbs/list returns it, e.g. `Bondi` or `St Kilda (Vic.)`.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: a fixed 2021-08-10 snapshot, a stated price of 5¢ per call, and the filtering rule that sparsely populated areas are omitted. Missing only return-format/pagination or rate-limit detail, which is minor here.

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?

Front-loaded with the core payload, then coverage, then price — the right order for a paid lookup. Slight redundancy between 'one snapshot at 10 August 2021' and 'Current to 2021-08-10', and the `/v1/datasets/ancestry` pointer is an endpoint reference rather than call-relevant guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape; it does so by saying counts and shares across 29 ancestries, and the `fields` parameter enumerates every returned column. Coverage limits and price are disclosed. Only the response envelope and per-suburb row structure remain unspecified.

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 3 is the baseline; the description exceeds it by declaring a single snapshot at 2021-08-10, which tells the agent that the `from`/`to` period parameters are effectively moot for this dataset. It also confirms the 29-ancestry scope behind the `fields` enumeration, though it adds no syntax guidance for `suburb_name` beyond the schema's example.

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?

Names the resource specifically (counts and shares for 29 named ancestries per suburb and council area) so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not name or differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling lga_area_stats_ancestry, and the 'every suburb and council area' phrasing blurs the boundary with that LGA-oriented tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetch a suburb's ancestry breakdown by name. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no routing to the ancestry_map / ethnicity_ancestry / lga_area_stats_ancestry siblings that compete for the same intent. The coverage note (areas with too few residents excluded) is the only constraint offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources