Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

by au.com.microburbs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Suburb · Flood area coverage + optional polygon map

suburbs_risks_flood
Read-onlyIdempotent

Share of the suburb AREA covered by modelled flood overlays.

Area, not properties. For the share of DWELLINGS affected — the figure our own reports headline — use GET /v1/suburbs/{suburb_name}/risks/property-hazard-counts.

To answer where the flood zone is, pass geojson=true. The response then includes the actual modelled flood polygons clipped to the suburb boundary, suitable for a street map, plus truncation/simplification metadata. Do not infer street location from coverage_pct alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geojsonNoWhen true, add a `geojson` FeatureCollection of the flood polygons clipped to the suburb boundary (default false — response unchanged).
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": "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
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value beyond them: it warns against inferring street location from coverage_pct, describes the polygon response when geojson=true, and mentions truncation/simplification metadata. It does not detail pagination or full response structure, but for this simple tool that is adequate.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It clarifies the area-vs-property distinction, names the alternative, and explains the optional geojson parameter without any fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: what the metric represents, when to use an alternative, how to get polygons, and a caution about misinterpreting the percentage. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is only 50% (geojson described, suburb_name not). The description thoroughly explains the geojson parameter and its effect on the response, but does not add semantics for suburb_name beyond what the tool name implies. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns the share of suburb area covered by flood overlays, distinguishes it from property-based metrics, and names the specific sibling alternative (property-hazard-counts). It is precise about the resource (suburb flood area) and verb (coverage share), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly directs users to the alternative property-hazard-counts endpoint when they need dwelling counts, and explains when to set geojson=true for polygon geometry. It does not explicitly mention property-level flood tools (e.g., properties_risks_flood), but the suburb-vs-property distinction is implicit and 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.

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