suburbs_demographics_single_parentsSingle-parent-family share for the suburb against the pinned national median, with the associated capital-growth impact.
| 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": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "Single-parent-family share vs the national median.",
- "example": {
- "growth_impact": {
- "band": "High single-parent share",
- "pct_per_year": -0.5
- },
- "national_median_pct": 5.8,
- "single_parent_pct": 11,
- "suburb": "Belmont North",
- "vs_national": "above"
- },
- "properties": {
- "growth_impact": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "The capital-growth difference historically associated with suburbs in this single-parent-share band. An association, not a forecast — see the field's own description.",
- "properties": {
- "band": {
- "description": "Plain-language name of the band the suburb landed in, suitable for display alongside the figure — e.g. 'Middle 90%', 'High unemployment', 'Low private-school share'. The wording differs per indicator; treat it as a label, not a shared enum.",
- "title": "Band",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "pct_per_year": {
- "description": "The growth difference historically associated with this band, in percentage points per year on a percent scale — `-3.8` means 3.8 percentage points a year worse, `0.5` means half a point a year better, and `0.0` (the common case, for suburbs in the middle band) means no association either way. A relative difference, not a growth rate in its own right.",
- "title": "Pct Per Year",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "pct_per_year",
- "band"
- ],
- "title": "GrowthImpact",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "national_median_pct": {
- "description": "The Australia-wide single-parent-family share to compare `single_parent_pct` against, as a percentage — a fixed 2021 Census benchmark, identical in every response. A different metric and a different number from the unemployment endpoint's benchmark of the same name.",
- "title": "National Median Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "single_parent_pct": {
- "description": "Single-parent-family share as a percentage.",
- "title": "Single Parent Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "suburb": {
- "description": "Canonical SAL name.",
- "title": "Suburb",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "vs_national": {
- "description": "Whether this suburb's single-parent share sits 'below' or 'above' the national benchmark. Exact equality is reported as 'above'.",
- "enum": [
- "below",
- "above"
- ],
- "title": "Vs National",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "suburb",
- "single_parent_pct",
- "national_median_pct",
- "vs_national",
- "growth_impact"
- ],
- "title": "SingleParents",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value."
- },
- "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[SingleParents]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SingleParents_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the 'pinned national median' and 'capital-growth impact', which gives some behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose how 'capital-growth impact' is measured or what the response format looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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, tightly worded sentence that states the core metric and comparison in one line. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is immediately readable. There is no padding, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must clarify what the caller receives. It explains the metric conceptually but does not specify whether the result is a numeric percentage, a comparison category, or a structured object. The term 'capital-growth impact' is also undefined, leaving agents uncertain about the output semantics and how to interpret the result.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for explaining the parameter. It confirms the tool operates per suburb but does not clarify expected formats, case sensitivity, or how suburb_name should be specified. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema field name already suggests.
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 clearly identifies the metric: single-parent-family share for a suburb, compared against the national median, plus a capital-growth impact measure. It distinguishes this tool from demographic siblings by naming the specific family-structure metric. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'computes', which makes it slightly less direct than ideal.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other demographic or market tools. The description implies it is for single-parent-family demographics, but it does not mention alternatives such as suburbs_demographics_all or suburbs_demographics_income, nor does it state when this specific metric is preferable. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool 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.