suburbs_shapes_mesh_blocksABS 2021 mesh-block polygons covering the suburb (GeoJSON FeatureCollection, MB code per feature).
| 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": "ABS 2021 mesh-block polygons covering the suburb.",
- "example": {
- "area_level": "suburb",
- "area_name": "Belmont North",
- "count": 85,
- "geojson": {
- "features": [
- {
- "geometry": {
- "coordinates": [
- [
- [
- 151.66,
- -32.99
- ],
- [
- 151.67,
- -32.99
- ],
- [
- 151.67,
- -33
- ],
- [
- 151.66,
- -32.99
- ]
- ]
- ],
- "type": "Polygon"
- },
- "properties": {
- "mb": "10693740000"
- },
- "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 mesh blocks returned.",
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "geojson": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "description": "GeoJSON FeatureCollection — one simplified polygon Feature per mesh block. Properties: `mb` (ABS MB_CODE21). Geometry is null on every Feature when the request passes `?geojson=false`.",
- "title": "Geojson",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "area_name",
- "area_level",
- "count",
- "geojson"
- ],
- "title": "SuburbMeshBlocks",
- "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[SuburbMeshBlocks]",
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-top-level-schema": "ApiResponse_SuburbMeshBlocks_"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds return-format context — GeoJSON FeatureCollection with per-feature MB codes — and the schema's geojson parameter documents the geometry-dropping behavior. It does not disclose output size, coordinate system, or edge cases, but for a read-only shapes fetch the coverage 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence with zero filler: the key resource is front-loaded, and the parenthetical captures format and per-feature detail efficiently. Every element 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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the deliverable and format, and the schema covers the optional parameter's behavior. However, it omits whether suburb_name must be exact or case-sensitive, gives no CRS/coordinate information, and does not position itself among the suburbs_shapes_* family, leaving moderate gaps for an agent selecting 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%: the non-obvious geojson parameter has a thorough description (geometry dropped, properties retained, default behavior), while suburb_name has only 'type: string' and no semantic context in the description. The description adds nothing about parameters directly, but the tricky one is already well handled by the schema and suburb_name is self-evident from the tool name.
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 precise resource — 'ABS 2021 mesh-block polygons covering the suburb' — and its exact format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection with MB code per feature). The 'mesh-block' qualifier inherently distinguishes it from sibling suburbs_shapes_* tools like boundary, easements, or busy_roads. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns' is implied), which keeps it from a 5.
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 given on when to choose mesh-block polygons over the many related shapes tools — no alternatives named, no when/when-not conditions. With roughly eleven suburbs_shapes_* siblings, an agent must infer selection purely from the resource name. Nothing in the description helps route the call.
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.