Skip to main content
Glama

google-maps-mcp-server

Server Details

Search Google Maps businesses via MCP - name, address, phone, rating, hours, GPS.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
Sagar27888/google-maps-mcp-server
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
Google Maps MCP Server

Available Tools

1 tool
search_google_mapsAInspect

Search Google Maps for businesses/places by keyword and location. Returns name, address, phone, rating, opening hours, and GPS coordinates for each result.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoLanguage code for results, e.g. "en", "es", "fr".
maxResultsNoMaximum places to return per query (default 20, max 500).
searchQueriesYesOne or more search terms, e.g. "restaurants in Delhi" or "dentists in Austin TX".

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does indicate a non-mutating search action and describes the output, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential concerns such as network/API dependencies, rate limits, or behavior when no results match, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the return fields. Every element contributes meaning and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a straightforward search tool, the description plus the 100%-covered schema is nearly complete: intended use, input requirements, and output fields are all covered. It falls slightly short of 5 only because it omits any caveats or edge-case behavior, which could matter in a no-output-schema, no-annotation context.

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 the schema already documents searchQueries, maxResults, and language adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('Google Maps'), and defines the scope ('businesses/places by keyword and location'), then lists the concrete fields returned. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, even with no sibling tools to contrast against.

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 phrase 'by keyword and location' clarifies the intended input pattern, and the returned-field list signals when the tool is useful. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tools named, but with no sibling tools provided, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for place discovery queries.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedsearch_google_maps

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables access to Google Maps business data including search, reviews, photos, and geocoding. Supports searching businesses by location, area, or coordinates, retrieving detailed business information, reviews, and performing reverse geocoding operations.
    13
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables searching Google Local for businesses by keyword and location, returning details like name, address, phone, hours, ratings, and more. Useful for lead generation, local SEO, and market analysis.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Search for places using Google Maps Places API and retrieve place photos. Supports text-based place searches with details like ratings, hours, and addresses.
    67
    1
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TSQS

Score is being calculated.