suburbs_shapes_easementsRegistered easement geometries intersecting the suburb (GeoJSON FeatureCollection).
| 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": "Registered easement geometries intersecting the suburb.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "count": 8,
- "geojson": {
- "features": [
- {
- "geometry": {
- "coordinates": [
- [
- [
- 151.66,
- -32.99
- ],
- [
- 151.67,
- -32.99
- ],
- [
- 151.67,
- -33
- ],
- [
- 151.66,
- -32.99
- ]
- ]
- ],
- "type": "Polygon"
- },
- "properties": {
- "category": "drainage"
- },
- "type": "Feature"
- }
- ],
- "type": "FeatureCollection"
- }
- },
- "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"
- },
- "count": {
- "description": "Number of easement features returned.",
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "geojson": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "GeoJSON FeatureCollection — easement geometries intersecting the suburb. Properties: `category`, `name`. Geometry is null on every Feature when the request passes `?geojson=false`.",
- "title": "Geojson",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "count",
- "geojson"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbEasements",
- "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[SuburbEasements]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbEasements_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns a GeoJSON FeatureCollection and that the geometries intersect the suburb, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what the schema and annotations provide.
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, efficient sentence that immediately states the resource and output format. It has no redundant words and is well front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 read-only geometry retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient. It states the return type (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and the selection criterion (intersecting the suburb). The optional 'geojson' parameter's behavior is documented in the schema, and the required 'suburb_name' is implied. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return information. Minor gaps like pagination are not critical for this tool.
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 description mentions no parameters at all. The input schema covers the 'geojson' parameter in detail, but 'suburb_name' has no description, and with only 50% schema coverage the description should compensate. It does not, leaving the 'suburb_name' parameter's meaning solely to inference from the description phrase 'intersecting the suburb', which is weak. This fails to add value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the resource (easement geometries) and the output format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), and the phrase 'intersecting the suburb' makes the selection criterion explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like suburbs_shapes_boundary or suburbs_shapes_busy_roads by the specific geometry type, though it lacks a direct verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be more appropriate for other geometry types. The only implied usage is that it is for easement geometries, but there is no explicit routing or exclusions.
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.