suburbs_risks_property_hazard_countsCounts and shares of the suburb's properties flagged bushfire / flood / mine-subsidence / contamination / aircraft-noise / acid-sulfate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "Per-property hazard flags aggregated to the suburb — counts and\nshares of addresses flagged bushfire / flood / mine-subsidence /\ncontamination / aircraft-noise / acid-sulfate.",
- "example": {
- "acid_sulfate": {
- "any_high_count": 0,
- "any_high_pct": 0,
- "surface_high_count": 0,
- "surface_high_pct": 0
- },
- "aircraft_noise": {},
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "bushfire": {
- "count": 644,
- "pct": 23.62
- },
- "contamination": {
- "nearest_m": 1.7,
- "within_250m_count": 180,
- "within_250m_pct": 6.6,
- "within_500m_count": 496,
- "within_500m_pct": 18.19
- },
- "flood": {
- "count": 154,
- "pct": 5.65
- },
- "mine_subsidence": {
- "count": 2727,
- "pct": 100
- },
- "total_properties": 2727
- },
- "properties": {
- "acid_sulfate": {
- "description": "Acid-sulfate soil exposure.",
- "properties": {
- "any_high_count": {
- "description": "Properties in any high acid-sulfate tier (surface/shallow/deep).",
- "title": "Any High Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "any_high_pct": {
- "description": "Share of properties in any high tier (%).",
- "title": "Any High Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "surface_high_count": {
- "description": "Properties in the surface-high tier.",
- "title": "Surface High Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "surface_high_pct": {
- "description": "Share of properties in the surface-high tier (%).",
- "title": "Surface High Pct",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "any_high_count",
- "any_high_pct",
- "surface_high_count",
- "surface_high_pct"
- ],
- "title": "AcidSulfateCounts",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "aircraft_noise": {
- "description": "Aircraft-noise (ANEF) exposure.",
- "properties": {
- "anef_avg": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Mean ANEF across properties (null = no exposure data).",
- "title": "Anef Avg"
- },
- "anef_max": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Max ANEF across properties (null = no exposure data).",
- "title": "Anef Max"
- }
- },
- "title": "AircraftNoise",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "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"
- },
- "bushfire": {
- "description": "Bushfire-prone-land flags.",
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "description": "Properties flagged for this hazard.",
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "pct": {
- "description": "Share of the suburb's properties (%).",
- "title": "Pct",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "pct"
- ],
- "title": "HazardCount",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "contamination": {
- "description": "Contamination-register proximity.",
- "properties": {
- "nearest_m": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Distance (m) from the closest property to the nearest contamination site.",
- "title": "Nearest M"
- },
- "within_250m_count": {
- "description": "Properties within 250 m of a contamination site.",
- "title": "Within 250M Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "within_250m_pct": {
- "description": "Share of properties within 250 m (%).",
- "title": "Within 250M Pct",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "within_500m_count": {
- "description": "Properties within 500 m of a contamination site.",
- "title": "Within 500M Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "within_500m_pct": {
- "description": "Share of properties within 500 m (%).",
- "title": "Within 500M Pct",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "within_250m_count",
- "within_250m_pct",
- "within_500m_count",
- "within_500m_pct"
- ],
- "title": "ContaminationCounts",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "flood": {
- "description": "Flood-planning-overlay flags.",
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "description": "Properties flagged for this hazard.",
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "pct": {
- "description": "Share of the suburb's properties (%).",
- "title": "Pct",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "pct"
- ],
- "title": "HazardCount",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "mine_subsidence": {
- "description": "Mine-subsidence-district flags.",
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "description": "Properties flagged for this hazard.",
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "pct": {
- "description": "Share of the suburb's properties (%).",
- "title": "Pct",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "pct"
- ],
- "title": "HazardCount",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "total_properties": {
- "description": "Principal GNAF addresses in the suburb.",
- "title": "Total Properties",
- "type": "integer"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "total_properties",
- "bushfire",
- "flood",
- "mine_subsidence",
- "contamination",
- "aircraft_noise",
- "acid_sulfate"
- ],
- "title": "PropertyHazardCounts",
- "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[PropertyHazardCounts]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_PropertyHazardCounts_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds that the output includes both counts and shares and that only flagged properties are counted, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention caveats like zero-count handling, share format (percentage vs fraction), or how missing data is represented.
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 a single sentence of about 20 words, front-loading the core operation ('Counts and shares') and enumerating the six hazard types concisely. Every word contributes meaningful detail; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the core data content and clarifies the parameter's general intent. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the exact output shape, share units, or how to distinguish this tool from closely related risk tools in the sibling set. It is adequate but leaves some selection and expectation gaps.
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 sole parameter, suburb_name, has no schema-level description (0% coverage). The tool description's phrase 'suburb's properties' implies the parameter identifies a suburb, but it gives no format, canonical name source, case sensitivity, or validation guidance. This provides only minimal compensation for the missing schema information.
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 uses a specific verb ('Counts and shares') and clearly identifies the resource: the suburb's properties flagged for six named hazard types. This distinguishes it from generic risk tools by enumerating exact hazard categories, though it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or direct differentiation.
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 tool compared to siblings like suburbs_risks_counts, suburbs_risks_all, or properties_risks_all. The description only states what it does, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name and title, which is minimal guidance.
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.