suburbs_shapes_boundarySimplified SAL boundary polygon (GeoJSON Feature) plus centroid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geojson | No | When false, geometry is dropped — every Feature keeps its `properties` but its `geometry` is null. Use it to fetch the counts and per-feature attributes without the coordinates (default true — response unchanged). | |
| 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": "Simplified suburb boundary polygon plus centroid.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "centroid": {
- "lat": -32.9931,
- "lng": 151.6688
- },
- "geojson": {
- "geometry": {
- "coordinates": [
- [
- [
- 151.66,
- -32.99
- ],
- [
- 151.67,
- -32.99
- ],
- [
- 151.67,
- -33
- ],
- [
- 151.66,
- -32.99
- ]
- ]
- ],
- "type": "Polygon"
- },
- "properties": {
- "suburb": "Belmont North"
- },
- "type": "Feature"
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "area_level": {
- "const": "suburb",
- "description": "Always 'suburb'.",
- "title": "Area Level",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "area_name": {
- "description": "Canonical ABS SAL name.",
- "title": "Area Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "centroid": {
- "description": "Boundary centroid (map-centre hint).",
- "example": {
- "lat": -32.9931,
- "lng": 151.6688
- },
- "properties": {
- "lat": {
- "description": "Latitude (WGS84).",
- "title": "Lat",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "lng": {
- "description": "Longitude (WGS84).",
- "title": "Lng",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "lat",
- "lng"
- ],
- "title": "Centroid",
- "type": "object"
- },
- "geojson": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "GeoJSON Feature — the SAL boundary polygon, simplified (topology-preserving, ~10 m tolerance, 6 dp coordinates). Geometry is null on every Feature when the request passes `?geojson=false`.",
- "title": "Geojson",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "centroid",
- "geojson"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbBoundary",
- "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[SuburbBoundary]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbBoundary_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations — the boundary is 'Simplified' rather than exact — which is a meaningful accuracy caveat. It does not disclose anything else (auth, rate limits, response size).
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 single clause is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted words. But it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise — it stops short of giving enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
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-required-param tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly adequate, but it leaves gaps: 'SAL' is unexplained jargon, the suburb_name parameter format is unspecified, and the meaning of 'plus centroid' in the output is not elaborated. No output schema exists, so the description carries more burden than it should.
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 only 50%, and the tool description adds no parameter meaning. The geojson parameter is well documented in the schema, but suburb_name has zero description or format guidance, and the description does not compensate for that gap.
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 names a specific resource ('SAL boundary polygon') and the output shape ('GeoJSON Feature plus centroid'), so an agent can tell it returns geometry rather than statistics. However, it lacks a verb ('get/fetch/return') and does nothing to distinguish it from the many 'suburbs_shapes_*' siblings beyond the word 'boundary'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like suburbs_shapes_neighbours, suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocks, or suburbs_profile. The only contextual hint lives inside the geojson schema description, not in the tool description, and it concerns the parameter rather than tool selection.
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.