Microburbs Australian Property Data

Comparable suburbs

suburbs_market_comparable_suburbs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Same-SA3 comparable-suburb candidates (canonical SAL names).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`suburb_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

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": "Same-SA3 comparable-suburb candidates.",
-          "example": {
-            "area_level": "suburb",
-            "area_name": "Belmont North",
-            "comparable_suburbs": [
-              "Argenton",
-              "Belmont (NSW)",
-              "Belmont South"
-            ],
-            "n": 49
-          },
-          "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"
-            },
-            "comparable_suburbs": {
-              "description": "Canonical SAL names in the same SA3.",
-              "items": {
-                "type": "string"
-              },
-              "title": "Comparable Suburbs",
-              "type": "array"
-            },
-            "n": {
-              "anyOf": [
-                {
-                  "type": "integer"
-                },
-                {
-                  "type": "null"
-                }
-              ],
-              "description": "Number of candidates.",
-              "title": "N"
-            }
-          },
-          "required": [
-            "area_name",
-            "area_level",
-            "comparable_suburbs"
-          ],
-          "title": "ComparableSuburbs",
-          "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[ComparableSuburbs]",
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_ComparableSuburbs_"
-}New value: +null

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that outputs use canonical SAL names, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose sorting, limits, or what 'comparable' criteria mean. This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short phrase with no filler. It front-loads the key distinguishing feature (SA3 comparable) and the output format note (canonical SAL names), so it is appropriately sized and structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the input format, the meaning of 'comparable', or the number/order of results. Given the many sibling market tools, an agent would need more context to call it correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'suburb_name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but there is no guidance on expected format (e.g., canonical name vs. common name) or examples, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 states the tool returns comparable-suburb candidates within the same SA3 region and notes they are canonical SAL names. This is a specific resource and scope, and it differentiates from the sibling 'suburbs_similar' by the SA3 constraint, though the verb 'comparable' is nominal rather than explicit (e.g., 'list' or 'return').

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'suburbs_similar' or other market tools. The SA3 mention hints at a specific use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?