Microburbs Australian Property Data

Suburb · Bushfire coverage

suburbs_risks_bushfire

Read-onlyIdempotent

Share of the suburb AREA covered by bushfire-prone designation.

Area, not properties — and the two differ a lot. Belmont North is 45.72% by area but 23.62% by property count, because designated land is not evenly built on. If you want "what share of homes here are affected", which is the figure our own reports headline, use GET /v1/suburbs/{suburb_name}/risks/property-hazard-counts — it returns a count and pct per hazard against the suburb's actual dwellings.

Price: 5¢ per call.

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_risks_bushfire"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`geojson`	No	When true, add a `geojson` FeatureCollection of the bushfire polygons clipped to the suburb boundary (default false — response unchanged).
`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": "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"
-        }
-      ],
-      "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[SuburbRisk]",
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbRisk_"
-}New value: +null

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: a per-call price (5¢) and a concrete worked example quantifying how far the area figure diverges from the property figure. It does not describe response shape or rounding, but the priced, read-only nature is well communicated.

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?

The core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence and the pricing note is cleanly separated. The numeric example costs some length, but it earns its place by making the semantic distinction concrete rather than abstract.

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 two-parameter, read-only metric tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the number means, which sibling answers the adjacent question, and the cost of calling. The only real omission is the suburb_name input format, which is left to inference from the example names.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: geojson is documented in-schema, but suburb_name is bare. The description partially compensates by using real suburb names ('Belmont North'), implying the parameter takes a name rather than an ID, though it never states format or casing rules. Adequate but not a full substitute for the undocumented parameter.

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 precise metric and unit: 'Share of the suburb AREA covered by bushfire-prone designation,' immediately disambiguating from property-level siblings. The area-vs-properties contrast makes the resource boundary unmistakable to an agent.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the alternative for the other interpretation ('what share of homes here are affected') and points to the property-hazard-counts endpoint. The when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that decision is fully spelled out.

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?