Suburb · Income-bracket breakdown
suburbs_demographics_incomeHousehold income breakdown by bracket.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
suburbs_demographics_incomeHousehold income breakdown by bracket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | 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": [
- {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One row of demographic data — age bracket or income bracket. The\nshape varies per endpoint; common keys are always present, the rest\nare open (``extra=allow``) so a renamed sub-key doesn't break\nclients.",
- "example": {
- "age_bracket": "0-4",
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "gender": "females",
- "proportion": 0.0272
- },
- "properties": {
- "age_bracket": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Only on /demographics/age.",
- "title": "Age Bracket"
- },
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "gender": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Only on /demographics/age — 'males' / 'females' / 'persons'.",
- "title": "Gender"
- },
- "income_bracket": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Only on /demographics/income.",
- "title": "Income Bracket"
- },
- "median_income": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Only on /demographics/income.",
- "title": "Median Income"
- },
- "proportion": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Share of the suburb in this bracket (0–1).",
- "title": "Proportion"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level"
- ],
- "title": "DemographicRow",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value.",
- "title": "Data"
- },
- "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[list[DemographicRow]]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_DemographicRow__"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as response format, granularity, or any rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single short sentence with no fluff or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It does not specify what the income brackets are, how they are presented (e.g., counts, percentages), or how to construct a valid suburb_name. An agent would need to consult other tools or guess.
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 zero description coverage for suburb_name, and the tool description does not explain the expected format (e.g., full suburb name, code, or how to obtain a valid value). With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all.
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 states a specific verb-resource: 'Household income breakdown by bracket.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling suburbs_demographics_income_map by using 'breakdown' rather than map, and the name reinforces the demographic focus.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suburbs_demographics_all or suburbs_demographics_income_map. It does not mention any selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.
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.