Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Microburbs Australian Property Data

by au.com.microburbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Suburb · Hazard item counts

suburbs_risks_counts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Counts of contamination points, heritage items and erosion-prone polygons inside the suburb.

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_counts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
suburb_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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": "Cached hazard-item counts inside the suburb boundary.",
-          "example": {
-            "area_level": "suburb",
-            "area_name": "Belmont North",
-            "contamination_points_n": 3,
-            "erosion_n": 0,
-            "heritage_items_n": 0
-          },
-          "properties": {
-            "area_level": {
-              "const": "suburb",
-              "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
-              "title": "Area Level",
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            "area_name": {
-              "description": "Canonical ABS SAL suburb name.",
-              "title": "Area Name",
-              "type": "string"
-            },
-            "contamination_points_n": {
-              "description": "Contamination-register points inside the suburb.",
-              "title": "Contamination Points N",
-              "type": "integer"
-            },
-            "erosion_n": {
-              "description": "Coastal-erosion-prone polygons intersecting the suburb.",
-              "title": "Erosion N",
-              "type": "integer"
-            },
-            "heritage_items_n": {
-              "description": "Heritage items inside the suburb.",
-              "title": "Heritage Items N",
-              "type": "integer"
-            }
-          },
-          "required": [
-            "area_name",
-            "area_level",
-            "contamination_points_n",
-            "heritage_items_n",
-            "erosion_n"
-          ],
-          "title": "RiskCounts",
-          "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[RiskCounts]",
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_RiskCounts_"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuinely new information in the form of the 5¢ per-call price, which matters for invocation decisions. It stops short of describing the shape of the result (e.g. one count per hazard category) or how uncounted/zero categories are handled.

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 hazard scope is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence, with pricing broken out separately so it is not buried. Slightly more could be done in the same space (e.g. a clause on return shape) rather than bold price formatting.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally should hint at the return structure, and it only partially does by enumerating the three counted categories. Given a one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and an explicit cost note, the definition is close to sufficient, with the main gap being parameter format expectations.

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 parameter suburb_name has 0% schema description coverage and the description only implies it via the phrase 'inside the suburb'. It adds no meaning about expected format (plain name vs. qualified name), matching behaviour, or what happens if the suburb is ambiguous or unknown, so the burden of interpretation remains.

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 names a specific operation (counts) over a specific resource (contamination points, heritage items, erosion-prone polygons) scoped to a suburb, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbours such as suburbs_risks_heritage_share or suburbs_risks_all, which overlap conceptually.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to prefer this over suburbs_risks_all or the per-hazard tools, or what preconditions exist (e.g. suburb must be resolvable). Usage is only implied by the noun phrase 'inside the suburb'.

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 toolsInspect
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