suburbs_risks_allBushfire + flood — bundle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geojson | No | When true, each sub-risk additionally carries a `geojson` FeatureCollection clipped to the suburb boundary — one call returns coverage plus every risk shape (default false — response unchanged). | |
| 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": [
- {
- "properties": {
- "bushfire": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One suburb-level risk record (bushfire or flood).\n\n`coverage_pct` is the share of the SAL covered by the modelled\nrisk overlay. `risk_band` is a coarse low/moderate/high band — only\npopulated for flood today; bushfire reports the raw percentage.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "coverage_pct": 45.72,
- "name": "Bushfire",
- "value_unit": "% of suburb area"
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "coverage_pct": {
- "description": "Share of suburb area inside the overlay (%).",
- "title": "Coverage Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "geojson": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "GeoJSON FeatureCollection of the hazard polygons for this layer, ST_Intersection-clipped to the suburb boundary and simplified for browser use. Present only when the request passes `?geojson=true`; absent (and the response byte-identical to before) otherwise.",
- "title": "Geojson"
- },
- "geojson_meta": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Clip / simplify / truncation metadata for `geojson` (clip method, simplify tolerance, coordinate precision, feature cap, and whether the size cap truncated the output). Present only with `?geojson=true`.",
- "title": "Geojson Meta"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Risk overlay name — 'Bushfire' or 'Flood'.",
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "risk_band": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Coarse band — 'low' / 'moderate' / 'high'. Currently flood only.",
- "title": "Risk Band"
- },
- "value_unit": {
- "description": "Unit for coverage_pct — '% of suburb area'.",
- "title": "Value Unit",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "name",
- "coverage_pct",
- "value_unit"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbRisk",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "coverage_pct": 45.72,
- "name": "Bushfire",
- "value_unit": "% of suburb area"
- }
- },
- "flood": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One suburb-level risk record (bushfire or flood).\n\n`coverage_pct` is the share of the SAL covered by the modelled\nrisk overlay. `risk_band` is a coarse low/moderate/high band — only\npopulated for flood today; bushfire reports the raw percentage.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "coverage_pct": 45.72,
- "name": "Bushfire",
- "value_unit": "% of suburb area"
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "coverage_pct": {
- "description": "Share of suburb area inside the overlay (%).",
- "title": "Coverage Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "geojson": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "GeoJSON FeatureCollection of the hazard polygons for this layer, ST_Intersection-clipped to the suburb boundary and simplified for browser use. Present only when the request passes `?geojson=true`; absent (and the response byte-identical to before) otherwise.",
- "title": "Geojson"
- },
- "geojson_meta": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Clip / simplify / truncation metadata for `geojson` (clip method, simplify tolerance, coordinate precision, feature cap, and whether the size cap truncated the output). Present only with `?geojson=true`.",
- "title": "Geojson Meta"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Risk overlay name — 'Bushfire' or 'Flood'.",
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "risk_band": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Coarse band — 'low' / 'moderate' / 'high'. Currently flood only.",
- "title": "Risk Band"
- },
- "value_unit": {
- "description": "Unit for coverage_pct — '% of suburb area'.",
- "title": "Value Unit",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "name",
- "coverage_pct",
- "value_unit"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbRisk",
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "coverage_pct": 7.2,
- "name": "Flood",
- "risk_band": "moderate",
- "value_unit": "% of suburb area"
- }
- }
- },
- "title": "SuburbRisksAll",
- "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[SuburbRisksAll]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbRisksAll_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those. It does not mention what the response contains, whether geojson shapes are returned by default, or any other side effects or limitations. The description provides zero incremental transparency.
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 extremely brief (six words), but brevity here sacrifices all utility. It is a label, not an informative description, and does not front-load any actionable information. While there is no wasted text, the under-specification makes it more like a placeholder than a deliberate concise summary.
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 bundle tool that aggregates two risk types and has no output schema, the description fails to explain the result format, the relationship to the individual risk tools, or any specifics about the geojson flag. An agent cannot predict what the tool returns or how to interpret the response, making it highly incomplete.
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 covers only 50% of parameters (only geojson has a description), and the tool description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented suburb_name. The description adds no meaning to either parameter and does not explain the role of geojson in the bundle context. With low schema coverage and no description support, this is a significant gap.
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 'Bushfire + flood — bundle' is a noun phrase that restates the title without explaining what the tool actually does. It lacks a verb and resource, does not clarify whether it returns data, shapes, or counts, and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools suburbs_risks_bushfire and suburbs_risks_flood. An agent would need to open the schema or make an inference to understand the purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this bundle versus the separate bushfire and flood tools, or when to prefer one call over two. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references, leaving the agent without any decision support.
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.