Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Microburbs Australian Property Data

by au.com.microburbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Suburb · Development Applications — last 5 years

suburbs_development_da_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Shown in the suburb report as the 'Development Applications' table in the Development section.

Development applications from the last 5 years, one row per site address (area_name is the street address), most recent first; same set as da-count.

Price: 18¢ 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_development_da_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
suburb_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput 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 development-application record near the suburb.",
-            "properties": {
-              "area_level": {
-                "description": "'suburb' or 'address'.",
-                "title": "Area Level",
-                "type": "string"
-              },
-              "area_name": {
-                "anyOf": [
-                  {
-                    "type": "string"
-                  },
-                  {
-                    "type": "null"
-                  }
-                ],
-                "description": "Suburb (SAL) name — may be empty for per-address rows.",
-                "title": "Area Name"
-              },
-              "category": {
-                "anyOf": [
-                  {
-                    "type": "string"
-                  },
-                  {
-                    "type": "null"
-                  }
-                ],
-                "description": "Coarse category — 'Renovation', 'New Dwelling', etc.",
-                "title": "Category"
-              },
-              "date": {
-                "anyOf": [
-                  {
-                    "type": "string"
-                  },
-                  {
-                    "type": "null"
-                  }
-                ],
-                "description": "DA lodged date (YYYY-MM-DD).",
-                "title": "Date"
-              },
-              "description": {
-                "anyOf": [
-                  {
-                    "type": "string"
-                  },
-                  {
-                    "type": "null"
-                  }
-                ],
-                "description": "Free-text description of the proposed works.",
-                "title": "Description"
-              },
-              "suburb": {
-                "anyOf": [
-                  {
-                    "type": "string"
-                  },
-                  {
-                    "type": "null"
-                  }
-                ],
-                "description": "Suburb the DA is in (when area_level=='address').",
-                "title": "Suburb"
-              }
-            },
-            "required": [
-              "area_level"
-            ],
-            "title": "DaRow",
-            "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[DaRow]]",
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_DaRow__"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior — and it does: a hard 5-year window, row grain (one per site address), sort order (most recent first), the meaning of the `area_name` response field, and explicit per-call pricing of 18¢. It does not disclose row limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: provenance, then data shape/ordering, then the equivalency note, with the price bolded at the end where it is easy to spot. No filler, though the first sentence is metadata about UI placement rather than something that changes how the agent calls the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the things an agent would otherwise have to guess: time window, row grain, sort order, field meaning, cost, and the relationship to the count sibling. Nothing material is missing beyond optional pagination details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter `suburb_name` is self-describing by name, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no format guidance (e.g., 'Subiaco' vs 'Subiaco WA 6008') or matching behavior. The one clarification it does offer, `area_name` = street address, describes a response field rather than the input.

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 concrete resource and scope: development applications from the last 5 years, one row per site address, most recent first. It also anchors the tool to a visible artifact ('the Development Applications table in the Development section') and to a sibling ('same set as `da-count`'), but it never contrasts with the similarly named `suburbs_development_applications`, leaving a real ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two.

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 stated: it is the table form of the DA data, and the 'same set as `da-count`' note hints at the aggregate alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no indication of eligibility or prerequisites (e.g., must the suburb be resolvable first).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Microburbs Australian Property Data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources