suburbs_profileThe suburb's upward ABS admin chain — LGA, SA2/3/4, GCCSA,
state, postcode. Use /v1/suburbs/list to discover canonical
SAL names (and filter by state / LGA / SA4 / postcode).
| 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": [
- {
- "description": "ABS geo profile — the upward admin chain for a suburb.",
- "example": {
- "gccsa": "Rest of NSW",
- "lga": "Lake Macquarie",
- "postcode": "2280",
- "sa2": "Belmont - Bennetts Green",
- "sa3": "Lake Macquarie - East",
- "sa4": "Newcastle and Lake Macquarie",
- "state": "New South Wales",
- "suburb": "Belmont North"
- },
- "properties": {
- "gccsa": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Greater Capital City Statistical Area.",
- "title": "Gccsa"
- },
- "lga": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Local Government Area.",
- "title": "Lga"
- },
- "postcode": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Postcode (POA).",
- "title": "Postcode"
- },
- "sa2": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "SA2 name.",
- "title": "Sa2"
- },
- "sa3": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "SA3 name.",
- "title": "Sa3"
- },
- "sa4": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "SA4 name.",
- "title": "Sa4"
- },
- "state": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "State / Territory.",
- "title": "State"
- },
- "suburb": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL — ABS Suburb and Locality).",
- "title": "Suburb",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "suburb"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbProfile",
- "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[SuburbProfile]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbProfile_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool returns the 'upward' admin chain, implying a hierarchical relationship. However, it doesn't disclose what happens for invalid suburb names, whether the response includes all levels or only available ones, or any rate-limit/auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. Every word earns its place.
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 with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, the input source, and the filtering options. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter format specification, but the pointer to /v1/suburbs/list mitigates that. No output schema exists, but the description's list of returned admin levels gives a reasonable expectation of the response shape.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'suburb_name'. The description mentions 'suburb' and references canonical SAL names, which implies the parameter should be a canonical SAL name. However, it doesn't explicitly state the expected format (e.g., 'SAL12345' vs 'Sydney'), case sensitivity, or that it must match the list from /v1/suburbs/list. The description adds some meaning but leaves the exact input contract to inference.
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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the suburb's upward ABS admin chain (LGA, SA2/3/4, GCCSA, state, postcode). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like suburbs_demographics_all or suburbs_market_all, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.
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 provides clear context: use /v1/suburbs/list to discover canonical SAL names and filter by state/LGA/SA4/postcode. This implies when to use this tool (after finding the canonical name) and gives a practical prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.
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.