Microburbs Australian Property Data

Suburb · Speed and red-light cameras

suburbs_transport_speed_cameras

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fixed speed, red-light and point-to-point camera counts per suburb and the distance to the nearest camera, for New South Wales and the ACT.

Coverage: New South Wales and the ACT only. Other states return no data. Current to 2026-10-28. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/speed-cameras.

Price: 3¢ per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "suburb_name": "<suburb_name>"
    },
    "name": "suburbs_transport_speed_cameras"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Last period to include, same formats as `from`.
`from`	No	First period to include: 2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07 or 2020-07-01.
`fields`	No	Comma-separated subset of: cameras_total, fixed_cameras, red_light_cameras, point_to_point_cameras, nearest_camera_m. Omit for all.
`suburb_name`	Yes	Suburb name exactly as /v1/suburbs/list returns it, e.g. `Bondi` or `St Kilda (Vic.)`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the geographic coverage limit, the currency date (2026-10-28), and a per-call price of 3¢, which affects call budgeting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The metric and granularity are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by coverage, currency and price in short lines. Every sentence carries operational value; only the doc pointer is slightly redundant padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (camera counts, nearest distance) and pointing to a field list. Coverage, currency and cost round out what an agent needs. Units for the distance field are left implicit, a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the from/to period formats and the fields subset are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the suburb and nearest-distance semantics that the schema already carries, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (speed, red-light and point-to-point camera counts plus distance to nearest camera) at a specific granularity (per suburb). That combination is distinct enough from sibling transport tools such as road crashes or public transport that an agent can select it without consulting another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete exclusion rule — 'Coverage: New South Wales and the ACT only. Other states return no data' — which tells the agent when not to call it. It stops short of naming any alternative tool to use for other states, so it is clear but not fully routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Microburbs Australian Property Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?