Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

Suburb · Year of arrival

suburbs_area_stats_year_of_arrival
Read-onlyIdempotent

When overseas-born residents arrived in Australia: from before 1951 to 2021, with a recent-arrivals total, for every suburb and council area.

Coverage: About 5,200 suburbs and localities and 505 council areas across Australia, in all states and territories (areas with too few people or homes 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/year-of-arrival.

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_year_of_arrival"
  }
}

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_born_overseas, arrived_2016_to_2021_count, arrived_2016_to_2021_pct, arrived_before_1951_count, arrived_before_1951_pct, arrived_1951_1960_count, arrived_1951_1960_pct, arrived_1961_1970_count, arrived_1961_1970_pct, arrived_1971_1980_count, arrived_1971_1980_pct, arrived_1981_1990_count, arrived_1981_1990_pct, arrived_1991_2000_count, arrived_1991_2000_pct, arrived_2001_2010_count, arrived_2001_2010_pct, arrived_2011_2015_count, arrived_2011_2015_pct, arrived_2016_count, arrived_2016_pct, arrived_2017_count, arrived_2017_pct, arrived_2018_count, arrived_2018_pct, arrived_2019_count, arrived_2019_pct, arrived_2020_count, arrived_2020_pct, arrived_2021_count, arrived_2021_pct, arrived_not_stated_count, arrived_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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful context: about 5,200 suburbs and 505 council areas, a fixed 10 August 2021 snapshot, exclusion of areas too small for reliable figures, and a per-call price of 5¢. The one gap is that the response shape and row granularity (one row per area?) are not stated, though that is partly covered by the field list in the schema.

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 first sentence front-loads what the tool returns and its scope; the coverage and pricing notes follow as short, scannable blocks. The coverage sentence is dense with parentheticals but every clause (counts, snapshot date, exclusion rule, docs pointer, price) carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still supplies the temporal scope, the snapshot date, the geographic coverage and its exclusion rule, the pricing constraint, and a docs pointer for fields and method, while the schema carries the parameter detail. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or to interpret the result's vintage is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `from`/`to` formats, the full `fields` list, and the exact-match requirement for `suburb_name`. The description adds essentially nothing parameter-specific beyond the passing mention of a 'recent-arrivals total', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource — overseas-born residents' year-of-arrival distribution from pre-1951 through 2021, plus a recent-arrivals total — and states the geographic grain (suburb and council area). That grain implicitly separates it from the LGA-only sibling, but it never names an alternative outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than asserted.

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 by the coverage statement (all suburbs and council areas, areas with too few people excluded) and by the pointer to `/v1/datasets/year-of-arrival` for method detail. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no 'use X instead when Y' routing, so an agent must infer the choice against siblings like lga_area_stats_year_of_arrival or suburbs_area_stats_birthplace.

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