Microburbs Australian Property Data

Forecast by mesh block — modelled outlook (by suburb) (beta)

suburbs_mesh_blocks_forecast

Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta. The figures behind this topic have not been validated against an independent source, so it is not sold at the same confidence as the other mesh-block topics. Every response says beta: true and carries a beta_notice.

What's the outlook? Modelled forecasts for every mesh block in the suburb: owner-occupation in 2026, capital growth, the chance of a rezoning within five years, and future building height.

One entry per mesh block in the suburb under mesh_blocks, each with its mb_code, population and dwellings. Values only — the matching polygons come from /shapes/mesh-blocks.

Every field carries provenance — measured (at this block), measured_wider_area (measured for the SA1 or postcode and repeated on every block in it), estimate (our model) or not_recorded (not labelled yet) — plus how, one sentence on how the number was arrived at (empty when not_recorded).

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_mesh_blocks_forecast"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`suburb_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description goes well beyond them: beta validation status, the guaranteed `beta: true` / `beta_notice` in every response, the `mesh_blocks` envelope with `mb_code`/`population`/`dwellings`, and a full legend for `provenance` and `how`. It does not address response size or pagination for a suburb with thousands of blocks, which is the main remaining behavioural unknown.

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?

Front-loaded with the beta caveat, then the substance, with bold segment headers making it scannable. Every sentence conveys something usable; the provenance taxonomy is dense but necessary and not padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape, field meanings, and the beta caveat, which is exactly what annotations and schema cannot supply. The only hole is the unqualified `suburb_name` input, which is a real gap given zero schema coverage.

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 `suburb_name` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden — yet it never explains the expected format (bare name vs. name plus state, case sensitivity) or how duplicate suburb names are disambiguated. That omission is material for the one required input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Modelled forecasts for every mesh block in the suburb', and enumerates exactly which measures are returned (owner-occupation 2026, capital growth, rezoning chance in five years, future building height). This cleanly separates it from the many other suburbs_mesh_blocks_* topics and from suburbs_forecast_sale.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context for when this applies (block-level modelled outlook for a suburb) and an explicit routing hint away from the wrong sibling for geometry: 'the matching polygons come from /shapes/mesh-blocks'. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it, e.g. versus suburbs_mesh_blocks_tenure for actual tenure counts or suburbs_market_price_growth for suburb-level growth.

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?