Suburb · Development applications
suburbs_development_applicationsRecent development applications (up to 100, newest first) with category counts.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
suburbs_development_applicationsRecent development applications (up to 100, newest first) with category counts.
| 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": "Recent development applications (up to 100, newest first).",
- "example": {
- "applications": [
- {
- "address": "38 Buttaba Avenue Belmont North NSW 2280",
- "category": "New Dwelling",
- "date": "2026-06-18",
- "dollar_value": 271740,
- "id": 99033512,
- "lat": -33.02082551,
- "lng": 151.676206648,
- "stage": "under_assessment",
- "stage_display": "Under Assessment",
- "title": "Secondary dwelling"
- }
- ],
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "categories": [
- {
- "category": "New Dwelling",
- "count": 21
- },
- {
- "category": "Renovation",
- "count": 48
- },
- {
- "category": "Demolition",
- "count": 9
- },
- {
- "category": "Other",
- "count": 22
- }
- ],
- "max_date": "2026-06-18",
- "min_date": "2019-12-02",
- "total": 100
- },
- "properties": {
- "applications": {
- "description": "DA records, newest first.",
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One development application.",
- "properties": {
- "address": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Cleaned site address.",
- "title": "Address"
- },
- "category": {
- "description": "Coarse category from the title classifier.",
- "title": "Category",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "date": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Lodged date (YYYY-MM-DD).",
- "title": "Date"
- },
- "dollar_value": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Estimated works value (AUD).",
- "title": "Dollar Value"
- },
- "id": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Source DA record id.",
- "title": "Id"
- },
- "lat": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Latitude (null for some sources, e.g. VIC).",
- "title": "Lat"
- },
- "lng": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Longitude.",
- "title": "Lng"
- },
- "stage": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Raw stage code (e.g. 'under_assessment').",
- "title": "Stage"
- },
- "stage_display": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Human-readable stage.",
- "title": "Stage Display"
- },
- "title": {
- "description": "Proposed works description.",
- "title": "Title",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "title",
- "category"
- ],
- "title": "DevelopmentDa",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Applications",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "categories": {
- "description": "Category counts across the returned applications.",
- "items": {
- "description": "DA count for one category.",
- "properties": {
- "category": {
- "description": "Education / New Dwelling / Renovation / Demolition / Commercial / Other.",
- "title": "Category",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "count": {
- "description": "Applications in this category.",
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "category",
- "count"
- ],
- "title": "DaCategoryCount",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Categories",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "max_date": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Most recent DA date on record.",
- "title": "Max Date"
- },
- "min_date": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Earliest DA on record for the suburb (full history, not just the returned list).",
- "title": "Min Date"
- },
- "total": {
- "description": "Applications returned (capped at 100).",
- "title": "Total",
- "type": "integer"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "total",
- "categories",
- "applications"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbDevelopmentApplications",
- "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[SuburbDevelopmentApplications]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbDevelopmentApplications_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: the limit of 100 results, ordering (newest first), and inclusion of category counts. It does not contradict annotations and provides context on data scope and structure.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraints (up to 100, newest first, category counts). There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word adds value.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions the limit, ordering, and category counts but does not describe the response structure or any error conditions. Given the lack of output schema, more detail on the return format would improve completeness, but the core information for calling is present.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It does not explicitly explain what suburb_name is or its expected format. Although the tool name makes it obvious, the description provides no direct parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer that it takes a suburb name. This is a gap given the low schema coverage.
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 states the tool returns recent development applications with a limit of 100, newest first, and includes category counts. It specifies the verb (implicitly 'get') and resource, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like suburbs_development_da_list or suburbs_development_da_count, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_development_da_list or suburbs_development_da_count. The description only states what it returns without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative use cases.
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.