suburbs_development_council_intelligenceCouncil capex / project-pipeline signals extracted from the LGA's meeting minutes — each with stage, dollar value, location and time horizon — plus a rollup of the total pipeline in dollars.
| 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": "Council capex / project-pipeline signals for the suburb's LGA.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "definition": "Council meeting-minute signals — capex commitments, infrastructure and community-facility projects, zoning amendments and environmental programs — extracted from the LGA's published minutes. pipeline_dollars is the sum of every signal's committed/estimated dollar value; signals with no stated value contribute 0.",
- "signals": [
- {
- "bucket": "active",
- "description": "Council has approved an additional $20 million for road renewal projects over the next four years, enhancing road infrastructure across the region.",
- "dollar_display": "$20M",
- "dollar_value": 20000000,
- "evidence": "Endorses the inclusion of an additional $20 million in Council funding to support an increase in Council's planned capital Road Renewal Program over the next four years.",
- "location": "LGA-wide",
- "meeting_date": "25 March 2025",
- "stage": "approved",
- "time_horizon": "2-5 years",
- "title": "10 Year Road Renewal Program",
- "type": "infrastructure_capex"
- }
- ],
- "summary": {
- "active_signals": 21,
- "n_types": 9,
- "pipeline_display": "$335.6M",
- "pipeline_dollars": 335562658.31,
- "total_signals": 32
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "definition": {
- "description": "What these signals are and how measured.",
- "title": "Definition",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "signals": {
- "description": "Signals, largest dollar_value first.",
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One council-minute signal — a project, capex commitment or decision.",
- "properties": {
- "bucket": {
- "description": "Stage rollup: 'active' (funded/approved/committed/in_progress/under_construction), 'proposals' (proposed/planning/consultation/draft/under_review), or 'other'.",
- "title": "Bucket",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "description": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Plain-English summary of what the council resolved.",
- "title": "Description"
- },
- "dollar_display": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Compact rendering of dollar_value, e.g. '$20M'. None when 0.",
- "title": "Dollar Display"
- },
- "dollar_value": {
- "description": "Committed / estimated value in AUD. 0 when the minutes state no figure (or the stated figure is unparseable).",
- "title": "Dollar Value",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "evidence": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Supporting quote from the council minutes.",
- "title": "Evidence"
- },
- "location": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Where the signal applies, e.g. 'LGA-wide'.",
- "title": "Location"
- },
- "meeting_date": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Council meeting date as minuted — free text, format varies ('25 March 2025', '22/03/2021'). None when unstated.",
- "title": "Meeting Date"
- },
- "stage": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Raw stage slug — 'approved', 'funded', 'proposed', 'under_review', …",
- "title": "Stage"
- },
- "time_horizon": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Stated delivery horizon, e.g. 'immediate', '2-5 years'.",
- "title": "Time Horizon"
- },
- "title": {
- "description": "Signal title as minuted. Unique within the list.",
- "title": "Title",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Signal category slug — e.g. 'infrastructure_capex', 'community_facility', 'zoning_amendment', 'environmental', 'transport', 'other'.",
- "title": "Type"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "title",
- "bucket",
- "dollar_value"
- ],
- "title": "CouncilSignal",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Signals",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "summary": {
- "description": "Headline rollup.",
- "properties": {
- "active_signals": {
- "description": "Signals whose stage buckets as 'active'.",
- "title": "Active Signals",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "n_types": {
- "description": "Distinct signal types present.",
- "title": "N Types",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "pipeline_display": {
- "description": "Compact rendering of pipeline_dollars, e.g. '$335.6M'.",
- "title": "Pipeline Display",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "pipeline_dollars": {
- "description": "Sum of every signal's dollar_value (AUD).",
- "title": "Pipeline Dollars",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "total_signals": {
- "description": "Distinct signals (deduped by title).",
- "title": "Total Signals",
- "type": "integer"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "total_signals",
- "active_signals",
- "pipeline_dollars",
- "pipeline_display",
- "n_types"
- ],
- "title": "CouncilIntelligenceSummary",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "definition",
- "summary",
- "signals"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbCouncilIntelligence",
- "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[SuburbCouncilIntelligence]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbCouncilIntelligence_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the output consists of extracted 'signals' from meeting minutes plus a rolled-up pipeline total, signaling analytical/derived output rather than raw documents. Freshness or interpretation caveats are not covered, but the safety profile is already annotated.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core deliverable, then expands into signal fields and the dollar rollup. No filler, repeated title content, or unnecessary clauses; every part earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description still provides enough output detail: per-signal stage, dollar value, location, and time horizon, plus the total pipeline in dollars. The single required input is discoverable from the schema, though the description does not explicitly state that the suburb maps to the containing LGA or describe the exact response structure.
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 only required parameter is suburb_name, and the schema provides no description. The tool description does not directly explain this parameter, but the name, title, and suburb-scoped wording make the expected value fairly obvious. It adds no format guidance or examples, making it adequate but not especially helpful.
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?
Names a specific resource — council capex/project-pipeline signals — and identifies the source (LGA meeting minutes), the core fields (stage, dollar value, location, time horizon), and a dollar rollup. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling suburb development tools focused on applications, construction activity, council rates, or zoning.
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 implies when it is relevant: questions about council capital expenditure or project pipelines derived from meeting minutes. However, it never explicitly states a use condition, excludes adjacent cases such as DA tracking or rates, or names an alternative tool, so routing is left to inference.
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.