Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Maps Place Search

maps_place_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Find restaurants / hotels / coffee shops / [businesses] near [location]" / "nearby [type] within [radius]" / "places to eat in [area]" — find nearby businesses and points of interest via Google Maps Places. Returns names, addresses, Google ratings, distances. Premium-quality POI data; requires Google Maps API key. Use over Yelp/OSM when you want Google's POI coverage and ratings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (e.g., "pizza near Times Square")
radiusNoSearch radius in meters (max 50000, default 5000)
_apiKeyYesGoogle Maps API key
locationNoCenter point as "lat,lng" (optional)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoStatus of the place search request
resultsNoArray of places matching search criteria

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Array of places matching search criteria",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "business_status": {
+            "description": "Business operational status",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "formatted_address": {
+            "description": "Formatted address of the place",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "geometry": {
+            "description": "Location geometry",
+            "properties": {
+              "location": {
+                "properties": {
+                  "lat": {
+                    "description": "Latitude",
+                    "type": "number"
+                  },
+                  "lng": {
+                    "description": "Longitude",
+                    "type": "number"
+                  }
+                },
+                "type": "object"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Place name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "place_id": {
+            "description": "Unique Google place ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "description": "Average user rating (0-5)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "types": {
+            "description": "Place type categories",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Status of the place search request",
+      "enum": [
+        "OK",
+        "ZERO_RESULTS",
+        "INVALID_REQUEST",
+        "OVER_QUERY_LIMIT",
+        "REQUEST_DENIED",
+        "UNKNOWN_ERROR"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-google_maps-api-key",
+    "query": "pizza near Times Square"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-google_maps-api-key",
+    "location": "40.7128,-74.0060",
+    "query": "coffee",
+    "radius": 1000
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting it returns 'names, addresses, Google ratings, distances' and requires a 'Google Maps API key'. No behavioral contradictions exist.

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 concise (4 lines), front-loaded with example query patterns, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description is not required to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage guidance, data quality, and authentication. It is sufficiently complete for a search tool with good annotation coverage.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions and examples. The description does not add further parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses clear verbs like 'find' and specifies the resource as 'nearby businesses and points of interest via Google Maps Places'. It provides concrete examples ('Find restaurants / hotels / coffee shops') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'maps_place_details' by explicitly offering search rather than details.

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 advises when to use this tool over alternatives ('Use over Yelp/OSM when you want Google's POI coverage and ratings'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for place details), but the examples and context imply the appropriate scope.

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

All Google_maps 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes unrelated domains (maps, prediction markets, npm dependencies, memory storage) under one server named 'Google_maps'. While individual tool descriptions are clear, an agent cannot easily distinguish which tools belong to the maps domain and which are extraneous, causing confusion about the server's actual purpose.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent convention. Maps tools use 'maps_' prefix, but other tools have names like 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'forget', etc., mixing prefixes, verb styles, and underscore usage. No unified naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a specialized maps server. Only 7 tools are map-related; the remaining 30 cover disparate domains (financial data, prediction markets, system utilities), making the server seem like a random collection rather than a focused integration.

Completeness2/5

For a maps server, common operations like static map generation, place photos, or timezone lookups are missing. The inclusion of many non-maps tools creates a 'kitchen sink' effect, undermining completeness for the stated purpose. The tool surface is severely incomplete if judged by the server name.

Resources