Suburb · Built-year profile
suburbs_market_built_yearEstimated build-year profile — suburb aggregate + per-mesh-block medians.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
suburbs_market_built_yearEstimated build-year profile — suburb aggregate + per-mesh-block medians.
| 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": "Suburb build-year aggregate + per-mesh-block medians.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "mbs": [
- {
- "mb": "10439043000",
- "median_yr": 1991,
- "modal_era": "1980_1999",
- "n_props": 61,
- "p10_yr": 1980,
- "p90_yr": 2000
- }
- ],
- "median_yr": 1979,
- "modal_era": "1980_1999",
- "n_mbs": 78,
- "n_props": 3405,
- "p10_yr": 1955,
- "p90_yr": 2010
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb' for these endpoints.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "mbs": {
- "description": "Per-mesh-block estimates.",
- "items": {
- "description": "Build-year estimates for one mesh block (FAMOUS model).",
- "properties": {
- "mb": {
- "description": "ABS mesh-block code (MB_CODE21).",
- "title": "Mb",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "median_yr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Median estimated build year for the mesh block, rounded to a whole year (typed float for backwards compatibility, so it serialises as 2006.0). An interpolated percentile — a mesh block has no single true build year, so read it as the middle of its range.",
- "title": "Median Yr"
- },
- "modal_era": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Modal era label, e.g. '1980_1999'.",
- "title": "Modal Era"
- },
- "n_props": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Properties behind the estimate.",
- "title": "N Props"
- },
- "p10_yr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "10th-percentile build year — 10% of dwellings here are older. Whole years.",
- "title": "P10 Yr"
- },
- "p90_yr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "90th-percentile build year — 10% of dwellings here are newer. Whole years.",
- "title": "P90 Yr"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "mb"
- ],
- "title": "BuiltYearMb",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Mbs",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "median_yr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Suburb median build year (median of MB medians).",
- "title": "Median Yr"
- },
- "modal_era": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Dominant era label across MBs, e.g. '1980_1999'.",
- "title": "Modal Era"
- },
- "n_mbs": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Mesh blocks with build-year data.",
- "title": "N Mbs"
- },
- "n_props": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Total properties behind the aggregate.",
- "title": "N Props"
- },
- "p10_yr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Earliest MB 10th-percentile year (range floor).",
- "title": "P10 Yr"
- },
- "p90_yr": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Latest MB 90th-percentile year (range ceiling).",
- "title": "P90 Yr"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "mbs"
- ],
- "title": "BuiltYear",
- "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[BuiltYear]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_BuiltYear_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by noting the data is 'Estimated' and providing the output granularity (aggregate and per-mesh-block medians), but it does not disclose caveats like accuracy, coverage, or how estimates are derived.
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 concise fragment with no wasted words and the key term 'Estimated build-year profile' is front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to serve as a complete specification.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough to understand the basic output shape (suburb aggregate and per-mesh-block medians), but no output schema exists and the description does not explain return fields, units, or how mesh blocks are identified. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 schema has only suburb_name with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'suburb' but gives no format, examples, case sensitivity, or validation guidance. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.
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 states the tool provides an 'Estimated build-year profile' for a suburb, specifying both 'suburb aggregate' and 'per-mesh-block medians' granularity. This clearly identifies the resource and scope, though it lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling market tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only implies usage through the resource name and description, which is insufficient among the many suburbs_market_* siblings.
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.