Skip to main content
Glama

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool returns counts of specific hazard categories, which is useful, but it does not disclose output structure, aggregation behavior, or edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core function and scope efficiently and is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is counted and where. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying whether the result is returned as a single aggregate count or separate per-category counts, but the core invocation information is present.

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?

There is only one parameter, suburb_name, and the schema provides no description for it. The description's phrase 'inside the suburb' weakly connects the parameter to the tool's scope, but it does not clarify accepted formats, naming conventions, or any disambiguation needed beyond the bare parameter name.

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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: it counts contamination points, heritage items, and erosion-prone polygons within a suburb. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling risk tools by naming its specific scope and item categories.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suburbs_risks_all, suburbs_risks_property_hazard_counts, or the per-property risk tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and terse description.

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