Google Maps

by com.googleapis.mapstools

resolve_maps_urls

Read-only

Resolves a list of Google Maps URLs into canonical Google Maps Place IDs.

When to call this tool (CRITICAL):

Use this tool when the user provides one or more Google Maps sharing links or URLs (e.g. 'https://maps.app.goo.gl/...', 'https://www.google.com/maps/place/...', or 'https://maps.google.com/...') and you need to extract the underlying canonical Place IDs.
You can specify up to 20 URLs to resolve in a single batch request.

Input Requirements (CRITICAL):

urls (array of strings - MANDATORY): The list of Google Maps URLs to resolve. Each URL must be a valid, single-place Google Maps URL.

Error Handling (CRITICAL):

This is a batch processing tool. A request might return "mixed results" (e.g. some URLs resolve successfully while others fail).
The output list of entities is guaranteed to map 1:1 with the input urls indices. A failed URL resolution will result in an empty Entity message (no fields are set) at its corresponding index in the entities list.
You MUST check the failed_requests map field in the response to identify which specific URL index failed. The key of failed_requests represents the 0-based index of the failed URL in the request. Do not assume the entire batch call failed because of a partial failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes	Required. The Google Maps URLs to be resolved. Each URL should be a valid Google Maps URL, for example, https://maps.app.goo.gl/..., https://www.google.com/maps/place/..., or https://maps.google.com/.... Currently, only URLs pointing to a single place are supported. You may specify up to 20 URLs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entities`	No	Output only. The list of resolved entities from the Google Maps URLs. Guaranteed to map 1:1 with the request `urls` indices. An empty message at index `i` (where no `entity` is set) indicates the resolution failed for that URL. If the resolution failed, please check the `failed_requests` field for the error status.
`failedRequests`	No	Output only. A map communicating partial failures for the Google Maps URLs. The key is the index of the failed request in the `urls` field. The value is the error status detailing why the resolution failed.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: batch processing can yield mixed results, entities map 1:1 to input indices, failed URLs produce empty Entity messages, and the failed_requests map must be checked for specific failures. This prevents misinterpreting partial failures as total failures.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear headers and bullet points, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat verbose, especially the repeated 'CRITICAL' sections and redundancy with the schema, but the detailed error-handling guidance earns the length.

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 read-only annotation, one parameter, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, batch behavior, error handling, and index mapping. It leaves no significant operational gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's 'urls' description already includes examples, constraints, and limits. The description's input requirements section largely repeats the same information, adding only emphasis on mandatory status. No meaningful additional semantics beyond 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 states 'Resolves a list of Google Maps URLs into canonical Google Maps Place IDs' – a specific verb and output. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like resolve_names and search_places by focusing on URL-to-Place-ID conversion.

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 'When to call this tool' section explicitly defines the exact scenario: when the user provides Google Maps links and you need Place IDs. It also notes the batch limit of 20 URLs. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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

All Google Maps tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinctly different purpose: compute_routes for travel directions, lookup_weather for meteorological data, search_places for free-text place discovery, and resolve_maps_urls/resolve_names for batch converting specific inputs (URLs or exact names) into canonical place IDs. There is no overlap in function that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (compute_routes, lookup_weather, search_places, resolve_names, resolve_maps_urls). The use of 'resolve' for two tools is slightly redundant but each targets a distinct input type (names vs. URLs), so the pattern remains predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

With five tools, the server is well-scoped for a Google Maps integration. It covers the essential capabilities (routing, weather, place search, and ID resolution) without unnecessary bloat, falling comfortably within the ideal 3-15 tool range.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core map-related tasks: route calculation, weather, place searching, and canonical place ID resolution from both URLs and named locations. A potential gap is lack of a dedicated reverse geocoding tool (lat/lng → address), but lookup_weather's geocoded output partially covers this, and search_places can handle address-like queries. Overall, the domain is well covered with only minor omissions.

Resources

Need Help?