Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

Parcels by mesh block — lot sizes and shapes (by suburb) (beta)

suburbs_mesh_blocks_parcels
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.

How big are the blocks of land? For every mesh block in the suburb: median and spread of lot sizes, lot shape, floor space ratio, the minimum lot size under the planning rules, and the number of land parcels.

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_parcels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
suburb_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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. Beyond that the description discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: the data is unvalidated, every response sets `beta: true` and carries a `beta_notice`, and each field carries `provenance` (measured / measured_wider_area / estimate / not_recorded) plus a `how` sentence. It doesn't cover auth needs or response size limits for large suburbs, so not 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?

Bold headers and short paragraphs make it easy to scan, and the result-shape paragraph is well organized. The beta caveat is repeated twice ('not validated against an independent source' and the beta:true/beta_notice sentence), and the disclaimer occupies the front position ahead of the core purpose, which slightly dilutes front-loading.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the response (a `mesh_blocks` array keyed by `mb_code`, with `population` and `dwellings`, plus per-field `provenance`/`how`). The remaining gap is input-side: nothing about suburb-name format or how large a response a suburb with many mesh blocks produces.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It says 'in the suburb' and 'by suburb', which confirms suburb_name identifies the area, but it never states the expected format (suburb name vs. code, state disambiguation) or suggests geocode_suburb for resolving a name. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: per mesh block in a suburb, it returns median/spread of lot sizes, lot shape, floor space ratio, minimum lot size and parcel counts. It also implicitly separates itself from the geometry sibling by stating 'Values only — the matching polygons come from /shapes/mesh-blocks'. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the agent actually wants parcels around a single address (properties_surroundings_parcels).

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: the tool is for 'every mesh block in the suburb' and explicitly not for polygons, which routes the agent to the shapes endpoint for geometry. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no advice for callers who need a single property's parcel, and no note on what to do if the suburb name is ambiguous or unknown.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources