Skip to main content
Glama
snickery

maps-mcp

by snickery
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

maps-mcp

An MCP server exposing Google Maps Platform to any MCP client: geocoding, place search/details, traffic-aware travel times, and time zones. Seven tools, built on the Python MCP SDK (FastMCP). Runs as a local stdio server or as a containerized Streamable HTTP service with bearer auth.

Auth is a single API key, not OAuth — Maps Platform is a key-metered developer API, so there are no accounts to connect and no token refresh.

Tool Reference

Tool

Parameters

Description

geocode

address, region = ""

Free-form address/place name → coordinates, canonical address, place_id. region is a ccTLD bias (e.g. au; default from MAPS_REGION).

reverse_geocode

latitude, longitude

Coordinates → nearest street address(es).

place_search

query, latitude = 0, longitude = 0, radius_meters = 0, open_now = False, max_results = 5

Text search for businesses/POIs ("vet near Potts Point"). Returns name, address, rating, open-now, phone, place_id. Optional circular location bias (default radius 5 km when a point is given).

place_details

place_id

One place in full: weekly opening hours, phone, website, rating, price level, editorial summary.

travel_time

origin, destination, mode = "drive", departure_time = "", avoid_tolls = False, arrival_time = "", include_tolls = False

Route duration + distance via the Routes API; traffic-aware for drive/two_wheeler (reports delay vs no-traffic baseline). Transit answers include per-leg detail (line, stops, clock times) and accept arrival_time ("be there by") — transit only, per the API. include_tolls adds an estimated toll cost for driving modes (extra computation, off by default). departure_time RFC3339, now-or-future.

place_search_nearby

latitude, longitude, included_types = "", radius_meters = 1500, max_results = 5, rank_by_distance = False

Typed "what's around me" (Places New searchNearby): included_types is a comma-separated place-type list (pharmacy, restaurant,cafe); optional nearest-first ranking.

time_zone

latitude, longitude, timestamp = 0

IANA zone + UTC offset (incl. DST) at a point; timestamp (epoch) evaluates DST at that moment.

Origins/destinations for travel_time accept three spellings, resolved by shape: a free-form address, "lat,lng", or "place_id:<id>".

# "When do I need to leave?" — compose with your calendar MCP server
travel_time(
    origin="home address here",
    destination="325 Edgecliff Rd, Woollahra",   # from the event's location
    mode="drive",
    departure_time="2026-07-05T08:30:00+10:00",
)

# Find somewhere that's open right now
place_search(query="pharmacy Potts Point", open_now=True)

Related MCP server: google-maps-mcp

Setup (Google Cloud console — one-time)

  1. Create (or pick) a GCP project. Prefer a dedicated project — an API key is easier to leak than an OAuth token, and project isolation caps the blast radius. Enable billing (personal volumes sit inside the monthly free tiers, but the billing account is mandatory).

  2. Enable four APIs: Geocoding API, Places API (New), Routes API, Time Zone API.

  3. Create an API key (Credentials → Create credentials → API key) and restrict it to exactly those four APIs. Add IP restrictions if the caller set is stable.

  4. Set MAPS_API_KEY in the server's environment and restart. The server runs fine without the key — every tool call returns a setup-pointer error until it's set — so deployment order doesn't matter.

Quick start (stdio)

Most MCP clients (Claude Code, Claude Desktop, VS Code, …) spawn stdio servers directly. With uv installed:

// e.g. Claude Desktop claude_desktop_config.json / Claude Code .mcp.json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "maps": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["run", "--project", "/path/to/maps-mcp", "maps-mcp", "--stdio"],
      "env": { "MAPS_API_KEY": "your-key-here" }
    }
  }
}

stdio mode has no network surface and skips bearer auth — the client owns the process.

HTTP mode (container)

The bundled Containerfile builds a Streamable HTTP server at /mcp (stateless — restarts never strand client sessions). HTTP mode refuses to start without MCP_BEARER_TOKEN; clients authenticate with Authorization: Bearer <token>.

podman build -t maps-mcp .    # or: docker build -t maps-mcp .
podman run -d --name maps-mcp -p 8328:8328 \
  -e MAPS_API_KEY=your-key -e MCP_BEARER_TOKEN=some-long-random-token \
  maps-mcp

maps_mcp.healthcheck does a full HTTP round-trip to /mcp (the 401 counts as alive — it proves the event loop responds); wire it to your container healthcheck with a restart-on-unhealthy policy. Terminate TLS at a reverse proxy — the server itself speaks plain HTTP.

Configuration

Env var

Default

Purpose

MAPS_API_KEY

(empty)

Google Maps Platform API key. Tools error clearly when unset.

MAPS_REGION

(empty)

Optional ccTLD geocoding bias (e.g. au). Empty lets Google decide.

MAPS_LANGUAGE

(empty)

Optional BCP-47 language for Places responses (e.g. en-AU).

PORT

8328

HTTP listen port.

MCP_BEARER_TOKEN

(empty)

Required in HTTP mode; server refuses to start without it. Not used in --stdio mode.

Architecture notes

  • Four upstream APIs, one thread-safe httpx.Client. Legacy-style APIs (Geocoding, Time Zone) take the key as a query param and report errors in a body status field; new-style APIs (Places New, Routes) take X-Goog-Api-Key + a mandatory X-Goog-FieldMask header.

  • Sync tool handlers are offloaded to a worker thread (the MCP SDK runs sync tools inline on the event loop, so a slow upstream call would otherwise stall every concurrent request). Per-request log lines (tool= outcome= duration_ms= rss_mib=) go to stderr.

  • API-key values are redacted from error messages before they can reach logs or clients.

Testing

# Tiers 1 + 2 — pure helpers + mocked HTTP (fast, no network, no key)
uv run --extra test pytest tests/test_maps_client.py -v

# Tier 3 — live API round-trips against stable Sydney landmarks
# (read-only; nothing to clean up). Gated on the key; skips without it.
MAPS_API_KEY=... uv run --extra test pytest tests/test_integration.py -v

License

MIT

Available Tools

7 tools
geocodeA

Resolve a free-form address or place name to coordinates, a canonical formatted address, and a place_id. region is a ccTLD bias (e.g. 'au'; default from the MAPS_REGION env var) — results elsewhere still resolve, just rank lower.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNo
addressYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the region bias behavior and the environment variable default, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and outputs; the second efficiently explains the region parameter nuance. It is compact and well-structured.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, the output components, and the region behavior. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like reverse_geocode, but this is a minor omission given the clarity of the core purpose.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by clarifying that 'address' accepts free-form text or place names and explaining 'region' as a ccTLD bias with a default from MAPS_REGION and a 'results elsewhere still resolve' caveat. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource (free-form address or place name) and the outputs (coordinates, canonical formatted address, place_id). This clearly distinguishes it from the reverse_geocode sibling and other related tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you have an address or place name and need coordinates and a canonical address. It also explains the region bias behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., place_search) or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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

place_detailsA

Full detail for one place by place_id (from place_search or geocode): weekly opening hours, phone, website, rating, price level, editorial summary.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
place_idYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns but does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free, require auth, or mention rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Full detail' but not explicitly confirmed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the key parameter, and the returned fields. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the prerequisite (where place_id comes from), the lookup target, and the concrete detail fields returned, leaving no critical invocation gap.

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 only parameter, place_id, is given meaningful context by noting it comes from place_search or geocode. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added provenance is valuable, though it could further clarify the ID format.

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 specifies the exact action ('Full detail for one place') and the resource ('by place_id'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like place_search and geocode by enumerating the detail fields (hours, phone, rating, etc.). This is a clear verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 clearly states that place_id comes from place_search or geocode, signaling the correct upstream tools and when to use this lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes the intended usage obvious.

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

place_search_nearbyA

Find places around a point by TYPE ('what's near me') — the typed complement to place_search's free-text queries.

latitude/longitude: center of the search circle. included_types: comma-separated place types, e.g. 'pharmacy', 'restaurant,cafe', 'ev_charging_station' (Places API type table); empty returns prominent places of any type. radius_meters: search radius (default 1500, max 50000). max_results: max places (default 5, max 20). rank_by_distance: True ranks nearest-first instead of by prominence.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYes
longitudeYes
max_resultsNo
radius_metersNo
included_typesNo
rank_by_distanceNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals multiple non-obvious behaviors: empty 'included_types' returns prominent places of any type, 'rank_by_distance=True' changes ranking from prominence to nearest-first, and it specifies default/max values for radius_meters and max_results. This goes beyond parameter listing and gives meaningful operational insight.

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 front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose and sibling differentiation. The parameter list is compact, well-structured, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, and it avoids redundant filler.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema. The description covers all parameter semantics, states defaults and edge cases, and provides a clear alternative to a sibling tool. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description is complete for its complexity and available structured data.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It explains every parameter: latitude/longitude as center, included_types with comma-separated syntax and examples, default and max for radius_meters, default and max for max_results, and the behavior of rank_by_distance. This is a textbook example of compensating for a schema with no descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Find places around a point by TYPE') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling 'place_search' by calling itself 'the typed complement to place_search's free-text queries.' This fully satisfies the requirement of a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names the alternative tool ('place_search') and states the when-to-use distinction: use this tool for typed 'what's near me' queries, and place_search for free-text queries. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool versus an alternative, exceeding the baseline.

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

reverse_geocodeC

Resolve coordinates to the nearest street address(es).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYes
longitudeYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds minor behavioral detail ('nearest', 'address(es)') but does not disclose behavior for invalid coordinates, no-match cases, or output format. There is no mention of side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality directly and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: no usage guidance, no parameter details, and no edge-case behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'coordinates', offering no additional meaning for 'latitude' and 'longitude'. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the self-explanatory parameter names.

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 a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource 'coordinates' to 'nearest street address(es)'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'geocode' tool, which presumably converts addresses to coordinates.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'geocode'. It does not mention exclusions or scenarios. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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

time_zoneA

IANA time zone + UTC offset (incl. DST) at coordinates. timestamp (unix epoch seconds) evaluates DST at a specific moment; 0 = now.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYes
longitudeYes
timestampNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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 adds valuable behavioral detail about how the timestamp parameter evaluates DST at a specific moment and that 0 means 'now', which is not visible in the schema. However, it does not disclose error behavior or side effects (unlikely for a read-only tool).

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 primary purpose and immediately followed by the timestamp nuance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the essential behavior, including the optional timestamp explanation, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the timestamp parameter's meaning well (unix epoch seconds, DST evaluation, 0=now), but latitude and longitude are not described beyond their parameter names, which are self-evident. Partial compensation yields a mid-range score.

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 returns IANA time zone and UTC offset (including DST) for given coordinates, which is a specific and distinct capability compared to siblings like geocode or travel_time. The resource and action are 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 implies the use case: obtain time zone data for a coordinate. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. Thus it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

travel_timeA

Route duration and distance between two points — traffic-aware for driving, step-by-step for transit. THE tool for "when do I need to leave?".

origin/destination: address, 'lat,lng', or 'place_id:'. mode: drive (default) / walk / bicycle / transit / two_wheeler. departure_time: RFC3339 (e.g. '2026-07-05T08:30:00+10:00'), must be now-or-future; empty means now. For driving, the result includes the delay vs the no-traffic baseline. arrival_time: RFC3339 "be there by" time — transit mode only (the Routes API restriction). The transit answer lists each leg: line, stops, and clock times, so "leave by" falls straight out. include_tolls: for drive/two_wheeler, adds an estimated toll cost (requests an extra computation — off by default).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNodrive
originYes
avoid_tollsNo
destinationYes
arrival_timeNo
include_tollsNo
departure_timeNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses traffic-aware delay vs baseline, transit leg details, extra computation for tolls, and API restrictions (arrival_time only for transit). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error handling, but for a routing API this is substantial transparency.

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 organized with clear line breaks separating the core purpose from parameter details. Every sentence adds value, using concrete examples (e.g., RFC3339 format) without excessive verbosity. It front-loads the purpose and then details each parameter efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential usage context, parameter semantics for most parameters, and special behavioral traits (traffic, transit legs, toll computation). The missing avoid_tolls is minor, and overall the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains origin/destination formats, mode values and defaults, RFC3339 time formats, the departure/arrival semantics, and include_tolls behavior. However, it omits the avoid_tolls parameter entirely, leaving that one parameter undocumented despite the schema having no description either.

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 computes route duration and distance between two points, with specific behavioral modes (traffic-aware driving, step-by-step transit). It positions itself as 'THE tool for when do I need to leave?', distinguishing itself from sibling tools like geocode or place_search which handle locations, not routing.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use it (routing, ETAs) and mode-specific constraints (e.g., arrival_time is transit-only). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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. 7 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedgeocode
    • First observedplace_details
    • First observedplace_search
    • First observedplace_search_nearby
    • First observedreverse_geocode
    • First observedtime_zone
    • First observedtravel_time
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: geocoding forward/reverse, place search by text or type, place details by ID, routing, and timezone lookup. Even place_search and place_search_nearby are clearly separated by free-text vs. type/radius queries with distinct parameters, leaving no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase with underscores and readable, but the pattern is mixed: geocode and reverse_geocode are verb-first, while place_search, place_details, travel_time, and time_zone are noun-first. This is a minor inconsistency that does not harm clarity.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools cover the core map-related operations without redundancy or bloat. The scope is well-balanced, fitting a focused maps MCP server that handles geocoding, place discovery, routing, and timezone data.

Completeness5/5

The surface provides a complete life-cycle for map queries: geocoding both directions, place discovery via text and type, detailed place information, travel time/directions, and timezone data. No major gaps for the stated purpose, and all operations are read-only which suits the domain.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/snickery/maps-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server