Skip to main content
Glama

Vee3

by io.github.Vee3io

google-maps.place_reviews

Get reviews for a Google Maps place.

Provide place_id from search results. The identifier also accepts the business identifier form (0x...:0x...). Optional sort_by (Relevant, Lowest, Highest, Newest), cursor, region, and language are supported. Pass cursor from a previous cursor_next to fetch the next page.

Returns place metadata and a reviews array. Each review includes fields such as review_id, review_text, rating, and user_name. cursor_next appears only when a pagination cursor is available. Additional upstream fields may appear.

Cost = 3 tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoPagination cursor from cursor_next on a previous response.
regionNoTwo-character region code (for example us). On search endpoints this biases results by ccTLD. On place endpoints this selects regional place data.
sort_byNoReview sort order: "Relevant" (default), "Lowest", "Highest", or "Newest".
languageNoLanguage code for results (for example en).
place_idYesGoogle Maps place identifier (for example ChIJk_grnPDq9EcRE7gOH9gAPZA). Also accepts the business identifier form (for example 0x47f4eb87e91f866d:0x9629fabb993eb66).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
placeNoPlace metadata for the reviewed location.
reviewsNoPlace reviews.
cursor_nextNoCursor for the next page when more results are available.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / GoogleMapsPlaceReviewsResponsePlace / properties / rating / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {},
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / GoogleMapsPlaceReviewsResponsePlaceLocation / properties / latitude / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {},
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / GoogleMapsPlaceReviewsResponsePlaceLocation / properties / longitude / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {},
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor_next appears only when available), return fields (review_id, review_text, rating, user_name), and cost (3 tokens). It also notes that additional upstream fields may appear, setting expectations. It stops short of covering error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is solid disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, input sourcing, optional parameters, pagination, return overview, and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, input requirements, optional parameters, pagination, return data, and cost. An output schema exists, so deep return-field documentation is delegated. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but given the tool's read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter well. The description adds value by explaining the workflow ('Provide place_id from search results', 'Pass cursor from a previous cursor_next to fetch the next page') and by listing sort_by options. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, earning a score above baseline.

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 'Get reviews for a Google Maps place,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like google-maps.place_details (metadata) and google-maps.place_photos (photos), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'Provide place_id from search results' and explaining optional parameters and pagination flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the prerequisite and parameter usage are well-defined, giving the agent enough guidance to invoke the tool correctly.

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

All Vee3 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, further clarified by group prefixes and clear descriptions. Within each group, tools perform different operations (e.g., domains.lookup vs. domains.whois vs. domains.rdap) with no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent group.tool_name pattern using snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniformly applied across all groups.

Tool Count4/5

78 tools is high, but the server aggregates multiple distinct API domains (11 groups). Each group has a reasonable number of tools, typically under 10, with TikTok having 17. The count reflects breadth, not bloat.

Completeness5/5

Each domain's tool set covers the primary expected operations (e.g., search, details, reviews, metrics, user info). There are no obvious gaps for read-only analytical use; features like posting are likely out of scope.

Resources