io.github.resuly/daleads-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

property_flood_sample

Fetch real flood score sample data for Rocklea QLD properties, including 1% AEP modelled depth and terrain context, without an API key.

Instructions

Real flood score component example, no API key required.

Returns the production scores.flood block for a study-covered Rocklea QLD point: official 1% AEP modelled depth, overlay status, terrain context and provenance.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "property_flood_sample"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a production data block, lists its contents, and states that no API key is required. This makes the safe, read-only nature of the sample clear, though it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key attribute ('no API key required'). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, sample data) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its intended use. It does not need to cover return format (schema handles this) or complex side effects, making it complete for its scope.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is no parameter information needed in the description, and the empty schema confirms this.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the production scores.flood block for a specific Rocklea QLD point, listing the exact data components (depth, overlay, terrain, provenance). The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like property_sample by focusing on flood scores.

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?

The description implies usage for exploration or demos by labeling it an 'example' and noting 'no API key required,' which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the simplicity of the tool makes these unnecessary.

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

Deploy Server