Suburb · Nearby schools
suburbs_schools_nearbySchools serving / near the suburb, with rank + attendance data.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suburb_name | Yes |
suburbs_schools_nearbySchools serving / near the suburb, with rank + attendance data.
| 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": [
- {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "One school within the suburb's catchment radius.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "attendance_rate": 0.89,
- "boys": 90,
- "gender": "coed",
- "girls": 82,
- "id": 42002,
- "name": "Belmont North Public School",
- "naplan_rank": 0.6282832390938133,
- "school_level_type": "Primary",
- "school_sector_type": "Public",
- "socioeconomic_rank": 0.17342543077837194
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Suburb (SAL) name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "attendance_rate": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Share of school days actually attended by the average enrolled student, as a fraction between 0 and 1 — 0.89 means 89%. Multiply by 100 to display. Most schools cluster in the high 0.8s to low 0.9s, so small differences matter more than the range suggests.",
- "title": "Attendance Rate"
- },
- "boys": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Number of male students enrolled — a headcount, despite the numeric type. Add to `girls` for total enrolment, which is the best available proxy for school size.",
- "title": "Boys"
- },
- "gender": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Who the school enrols — 'coed', 'girls' (girls only) or 'boys' (boys only).",
- "title": "Gender"
- },
- "girls": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Number of female students enrolled — a headcount. See `boys`.",
- "title": "Girls"
- },
- "id": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Stable numeric identifier for the school, for joining these rows across calls. Delivered as a number but it is an identifier — do not do arithmetic on it or compare its magnitude.",
- "title": "Id"
- },
- "name": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The school's full name, as officially registered.",
- "title": "Name"
- },
- "naplan_rank": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The school's academic standing on national NAPLAN testing, as a percentile between 0 and 1 where higher is better — 0.63 puts the school ahead of about 63% of schools, i.e. in roughly the top 40%. A fraction, not a percentage and not a raw test score. Null when the school has no published NAPLAN standing.",
- "title": "Naplan Rank"
- },
- "school_level_type": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Which years the school covers — 'Primary', 'Secondary', or 'Combined' for a school spanning both.",
- "title": "School Level Type"
- },
- "school_sector_type": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "Who runs the school — 'Public' (government), 'Private', or 'Non-Government' (the wider category including Catholic and independent schools). Fee-paying status is implied, not stated.",
- "title": "School Sector Type"
- },
- "socioeconomic_rank": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "How advantaged the school's community is, as a percentile between 0 and 1 where higher means more advantaged — 0.17 sits near the bottom of the national distribution. Measures the intake's socio-economic background, not teaching quality, and it is separate from `naplan_rank`: schools rank high on one and low on the other.",
- "title": "Socioeconomic Rank"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level"
- ],
- "title": "SchoolNearbyRow",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "The endpoint's payload, or `null` when Microburbs has no value.",
- "title": "Data"
- },
- "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[list[SchoolNearbyRow]]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_list_SchoolNearbyRow__"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data payload (rank + attendance) but discloses nothing about how 'near' is defined, result limits, or response shape. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotations.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the data contents. Every word earns its place.
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 1-parameter read-only lookup, the description is adequate but thin. It omits how 'near' is defined, what the full return looks like, and how it differs from siblings like suburbs_schools_catchment. With no output schema, an agent must guess at the response structure beyond rank + attendance.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load for the single parameter. It implies suburb_name selects the suburb ('near the suburb') but adds no format, naming convention, or accepted values. The self-explanatory parameter name partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 states a specific resource (suburb) and scope (schools serving/near it) plus data contents (rank + attendance). This distinguishes it from suburbs_schools_catchment and suburbs_schools_all by scope. However, the 'serving / near' phrasing is ambiguous and it never explicitly names a sibling.
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 on when to use this tool versus the closely related suburbs_schools_all, suburbs_schools_catchment, or properties_schools_nearby. The sibling list contains a dense cluster of school tools, and the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or when-not-to-use hints.
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.