Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Microburbs Australian Property Data

by au.com.microburbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Suburb · Development profile

suburbs_development_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Shown in the suburb report as the 'Density' card body in the Development section.

Dwelling-mix scalars — apartment share and average lot size.

Price: 5¢ 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_profile"
  }
}

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": [
-        {
-          "additionalProperties": true,
-          "description": "Dwelling-mix scalars from the suburb-profile build.",
-          "example": {
-            "apartment_pct": 1.2,
-            "area_level": "suburb",
-            "area_name": "Belmont North",
-            "avg_lot_m2": 758
-          },
-          "properties": {
-            "apartment_pct": {
-              "anyOf": [
-                {
-                  "type": "number"
-                },
-                {
-                  "type": "null"
-                }
-              ],
-              "description": "Apartments as a share of the dwelling stock (%).",
-              "title": "Apartment Pct"
-            },
-            "area_level": {
-              "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
-              "title": "Area Level",
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            "area_name": {
-              "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
-              "title": "Area Name",
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            "avg_lot_m2": {
-              "anyOf": [
-                {
-                  "type": "integer"
-                },
-                {
-                  "type": "null"
-                }
-              ],
-              "description": "Average residential lot size (m²).",
-              "title": "Avg Lot M2"
-            }
-          },
-          "required": [
-            "area_name",
-            "area_level"
-          ],
-          "title": "SuburbDevelopmentProfile",
-          "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[SuburbDevelopmentProfile]",
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbDevelopmentProfile_"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description's real addition is the cost disclosure ('5¢ per call'), which is genuinely useful for call budgeting, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown suburb names or about the shape/size of the returned scalars.

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 short bursts with no filler, and the price note is cleanly separated at the end. The lead sentence, however, spends prime real estate on report-card placement instead of front-loading what the tool returns.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With one parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is roughly adequate: the payload fields double as an informal return description and the price is stated. What is missing is any bridge between the required suburb_name input and where an agent obtains a valid value, and any signal on how this differs from the adjacent density/development endpoints.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is undocumented anywhere. The description never explains what form suburb_name should take (exact name, ID, postcode-scoped) or that geocode_suburb could supply valid values, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description names the concrete payload — 'dwelling-mix scalars — apartment share and average lot size' — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back, and the 'Density card body' note ties it to a recognizable report element. It stops short of distinguishing this from close siblings such as suburbs_development_density or suburbs_development_all, and never states a retrieval verb or scope explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named despite several neighbouring development tools existing. The 'shown in the suburb report' line describes UI placement rather than a decision rule an agent can act on.

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