google-maps-mcp-server
Server Details
Local business lead extraction with email + phone enrichment from Google Maps.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The two maps-related tools have slightly overlapping data (both return business name, address, phone, etc.) but distinct purposes: one for lead generation, one for general search. The email validation tool is completely different, so overall ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (generate_leads, search_local_businesses, validate_emails), creating a predictable naming convention.
Three tools are too few for a comprehensive Google Maps server. Critical features like geocoding, directions, place details, and reviews are missing, and one tool (validate_emails) is unrelated.
The tool set lacks essential Google Maps operations such as geocoding, directions, and detailed place information. The inclusion of an email validation tool further undermines domain completeness.
Available Tools
3 toolsgenerate_leadsARead-onlyInspect
Extract B2B lead lists from Google Maps by business category and geography. Returns company name, full address, contact phone, website, business category, and review metrics. Use for sales prospecting, market research, or building vendor lists. Returns 20+ leads per query by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City where businesses are located (e.g. 'Denver', 'New York', 'San Francisco') | |
| state | No | State or region abbreviation (e.g. 'CO', 'NY', 'CA') | |
| max_results | No | Number of leads to generate (default 20, recommended for data quality) | |
| business_type | Yes | Industry or business category to target (e.g. 'HVAC contractors', 'dental clinics', 'software development firms') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that data is extracted from Google Maps and returns 20+ leads by default, which provides some behavioral context but no additional details on rate limits, data freshness, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: core function, returned fields, and usage/default. No fluff, front-loaded with the most critical information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists return fields. It covers source, function, usage, and default results. The optional state parameter is not explicitly mentioned as optional, but the schema handles that. For a simple tool, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description mentions 'Returns 20+ leads per query by default' which echoes the max_results parameter. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Extract B2B lead lists from Google Maps by business category and geography', which is a specific verb+resource. It also lists the returned fields and usage contexts (sales prospecting, market research, vendor lists), making the purpose crystal clear and distinct from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use for sales prospecting, market research, or building vendor lists.' It does not directly compare to siblings (search_local_businesses, validate_emails) but implies a lead-generation focus, which helps agents decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_local_businessesARead-onlyInspect
Search Google Maps for local businesses matching a query and location. Returns business name, complete address, star rating, review count, phone number, website URL, and business category. Use for restaurant discovery, service provider lookup, or competitive local analysis. Returns open/closed status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Business type or name to find (e.g. 'plumbers near me', 'Thai restaurants', 'Starbucks') | |
| location | No | Geographic location as city, zip code, or address (e.g. 'Los Angeles, CA', '90210', '1600 Pennsylvania Ave') | |
| max_results | No | Number of business results to return (default 10, max 50 for large searches) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are complemented by description stating return fields and open/closed status, with no contradictions. Description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description lists return fields (name, address, rating, etc.) and states open/closed status. Could mention pagination or error handling, but sufficient for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds context for query and location types but does not significantly enhance beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Search Google Maps for local businesses matching a query and location' and lists returned fields and use cases. Differentiates from siblings (generate_leads, validate_emails) by being a distinct search tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases like 'restaurant discovery, service provider lookup, or competitive local analysis' but does not mention when not to use or alternatives. Still clear and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_emailsARead-onlyInspect
Validate and verify email addresses for deliverability, format compliance, and mailbox existence. Returns pass/fail status per email, syntax errors, domain validity, and SMTP verification result. Use before sending bulk emails to prevent bounces and protect sender reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | Array of email addresses to validate for syntax, domain, and deliverability |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint (safe) and openWorldHint (external). Description adds specifics: returns pass/fail, syntax errors, domain validity, SMTP verification result, implying network calls for mailbox existence check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Single parameter fully described in schema, annotations present, description explains functionality, return values, and usage context. No output schema needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions and examples. Description adds validation context but no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Validate and verify' for resource 'email addresses', specifying deliverability, format compliance, mailbox existence. Distinguishes from sibling tools generate_leads and search_local_businesses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends use before sending bulk emails to prevent bounces. Provides clear context, though no when-not-to-use alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!