Google Maps & Local Business MCP Server
Server Details
MCP server providing Google Maps data, local business information, place details, and geolocation services for AI agents.
- 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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: lead generation, local search, and email validation. However, the inclusion of email validation alongside Google Maps tools may cause confusion about the server's core domain, but the tools themselves are easily distinguishable.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (generate_leads, search_local_businesses, validate_emails), using underscores and clear action-object pairs.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a domain as broad as Google Maps and local business. The count is borderline but not extreme, especially given the inclusion of an unrelated email validation tool.
The server provides only two local business tools (search and lead generation), missing essential operations like getting detailed business info, directions, reviews, or location queries. The email validation tool is out of scope and does not fill any obvious gap in the local business domain.
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 the return fields and default result count, which provides useful context but does not go beyond what annotations imply.
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 with front-loaded action verb and no extraneous 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 adequately lists the returned fields and use cases. Could mention pagination or rate limits, but overall sufficient for a lead extraction 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% and description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the four parameters.
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 clearly states it extracts B2B lead lists from Google Maps by business category and geography, and lists specific returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_local_businesses and validate_emails.
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 specifies use cases (sales prospecting, market research, building vendor lists) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.
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 already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds return fields and open/closed status but does not disclose potential behavioral details like rate limits or data freshness. Adequate but not extra.
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?
Very concise three sentences: first states core function, second lists return fields, third gives use cases and an additional field (open/closed status). No fluff, front-loaded with key action.
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?
Covers purpose, return fields, and typical use cases. Lacks details on result ordering or exhaustive scope, but annotations (openWorldHint) imply variability. Adequate for a straightforward search tool without output schema.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Description does not add new parameter-level meaning; it only states what fields are returned. Baseline score 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?
Clearly states the tool searches Google Maps for local businesses by query and location, and lists specific return fields. Differentiates from sibling tools (generate_leads, validate_emails) which serve different purposes in lead generation workflow.
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 (restaurant discovery, service provider lookup, competitive local analysis) giving agents clear context. No when-not-to-use guidance, but sibling differentiation is sufficient.
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?
Description discloses return values (pass/fail, syntax errors, domain validity, SMTP result) beyond annotations. Annotations declare readOnly and openWorld, which are consistent with a validation tool. No contradictions.
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 sentences: first explains core functionality, second provides use case. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose.
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 simple parameter set (1 array) and no output schema, description compensates by explaining return values. Context is 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of the single parameter (emails) with description. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides, but baseline is adequate.
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 it validates email addresses for deliverability, format, and mailbox existence. Differentiates from sibling tools (generate_leads, search_local_businesses) by focusing on validation.
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 advises to use before sending bulk emails to prevent bounces and protect sender reputation. Provides clear context but does not include when not to use or alternatives.
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!