Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

Suburb · Recorded crime (South Australia)

suburbs_crime_recorded_offences_sa
Read-onlyIdempotent

Police-recorded offences in South Australia by suburb, per financial year (July to June) for 2015-16 to 2024-25, by offence type.

Coverage: South Australia: 1,582 suburbs; financial years 2015-16 to 2024-25. Current to 2025-06-30. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/recorded-crime-sa.

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_crime_recorded_offences_sa"
  }
}

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_offences, abduction_harassment_and_other_offences, aggravated_robbery, assault_police, blackmail_and_extortion, common_assault, dangerous_or_negligent_acts, graffiti, murder, non_aggravated_robbery, obtain_benefit_by_deception, other_acts_intended_to_cause_injury, other_fraud_deception_and_related_offences, other_homicide_and_related_offences, other_offences_against_property, other_offences_against_the_person_nec, other_property_damage_and_environmental, other_theft, other_unlawful_entry_with_intent, property_damage_by_fire_or_explosion, receive_or_handle_proceeds_of_crime, serious_assault_not_resulting_in_injury, serious_assault_resulting_in_injury, serious_criminal_trespass_non_residence, serious_criminal_trespass_residence, theft_from_motor_vehicle, theft_from_shop, theft_or_illegal_use_of_a_motor_vehicle, threatening_behaviour. 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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: coverage (1,582 SA suburbs), currency date (2025-06-30) and a per-call price of 5¢, which materially affects whether an agent should batch or economise calls. Return-shape detail is absent but there is no output schema to lean on.

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 verb-and-resource in the first sentence, then coverage, currency and price in a compact block; nothing is padded with filler. The only waste is mild repetition, since the financial-year range 2015-16 to 2024-25 appears both in the opening sentence and again in the coverage line.

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?

For a read-only, single-required-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies coverage, currency, cost and a pointer to the method/field documentation — enough to call it correctly. The residual gap is discovery: it never says how to obtain a valid `suburb_name` (the schema defers to `/v1/suburbs/list`, but the description does not reinforce that or point at `geocode_suburb`).

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 the schema baseline already carries `from`, `to`, `fields` and `suburb_name`. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: that periods are financial years running July to June, which is how an agent should interpret the `from`/`to` values, and it flags offence-type breakdown as the pivot for the `fields` parameter.

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?

States a specific resource (police-recorded offences), a geographic grain (by suburb), a jurisdiction (South Australia), a time basis (financial year, July–June) and a breakdown (offence type). That is far more than a restatement of the name, and the state qualifier implicitly separates it from the ACT/NSW/QLD/VIC siblings, though it never names a sibling or the LGA-level alternative.

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 guided: an agent can infer this is the SA suburb-level series and that the LGA tools cover a different grain, but the description never states when to prefer it, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead. The pointer to `/v1/datasets/recorded-crime-sa` is a documentation reference, not selection guidance.

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