Turn Maps queries into lead lists: businesses, phones, websites, and reviews with async job control.
Scored across 4 tools
The names maps_jobs, maps_results, and maps_status could easily be confused: jobs have statuses and results are tied to jobs, while the descriptions ('V1 Maps Jobs') provide no clarifying detail. Only maps_search stands out as a distinct action.
Every tool follows the same maps_<noun> lowercase snake_case convention, so the naming pattern is completely predictable. Although the names are nouns rather than verb-noun phrases, the consistency is perfect.
Four tools is a well-scoped surface for a narrow Google Maps leads API, with each tool likely mapping to one step in the search/jobs/results/status workflow. No redundant or excessive endpoints are present.
The set covers the core asynchronous workflow of creating a Maps search, tracking jobs, checking status, and retrieving results. Minor lifecycle operations such as canceling or deleting a job are missing, but agents can still accomplish the primary lead-generation task.
V1 Maps Jobs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extra | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral description, the agent has no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the tool is invoked. The description 'V1 Maps Jobs' discloses nothing beyond the tool's existence.
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?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful information and does not earn its place as a tool description.
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?
For a tool with one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and three sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. The agent lacks all context needed to select or invoke this tool 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?
The schema has one required parameter 'extra' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'extra' means, its format, or its purpose. The agent cannot determine what value to provide.
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 'V1 Maps Jobs' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without any verb or resource. It does not state what the tool does, what a 'job' is, or how it differs from sibling tools like maps_results, maps_search, or maps_status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether this is for creating, listing, or managing jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
V1 Maps Results
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| job_id | No |
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, but it says nothing about return values, side effects, pagination, authentication, or the source of the 'results.' The word 'Results' weakly implies a read operation, but no actual behavior is disclosed.
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 words is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded meaning, no sentence structure, and no attempt to convey the tool's function or constraints.
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, no annotations, and two completely undocumented parameters, the tool is missing nearly all context an agent needs. The description is a placeholder and does not sufficiently describe what the tool does or how to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'job_id' at all. An agent cannot infer what these parameters control, how they interact, or whether job_id refers to a maps job from a sibling tool.
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 'V1 Maps Results' is a bare noun phrase with no verb and essentially restates the tool name. It does not indicate an operation such as fetching, listing, or exporting, and it provides no differentiation from sibling tools like maps_jobs or maps_status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or how it relates to the sibling tools. The sibling names imply related workflows, but the description never mentions any selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
V1 Maps Search
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| depth | No | ||
| No | |||
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description contains no behavioral information whatsoever—no side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output characteristics. The description fails to disclose any trait beyond the tool's name, which is especially problematic because the burden is entirely on the description.
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?
The description is short but under-specified, which is not the same as being concise. A single versioned name phrase provides no structured information, no front-loaded key details, and no useful content, making it an inadequate description rather than a model of brevity.
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 this tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and three sibling tools, the description is entirely inadequate. It omits information about how to invoke the tool, what inputs are expected, what outputs look like, and how it relates to maps_jobs, maps_results, and maps_status, so an agent has no basis for correct invocation.
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?
All four parameters (lang, depth, email, query) are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation of them. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of inputs.
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 'V1 Maps Search' essentially restates the tool name, with 'V1' being a version marker and 'Maps Search' a noun phrase echoing 'maps_search'. It does not specify what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or how it differs from sibling tools, and it fails to articulate a clear purpose beyond a label.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as maps_jobs, maps_results, or maps_status. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without any basis for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
V1 Maps Status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, if there are side effects, or any constraints. The single phrase conveys nothing about behavior.
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?
The description is extremely short, which might seem concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks essential content that would make every word earn 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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not clarify the purpose, return value, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'job_id' parameter at all. The schema itself only provides the type and default, so the agent has no understanding of what the parameter means or how to use it.
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 'V1 Maps Status' provides only a hint that this tool relates to status information for maps, but does not state a clear verb or resource. It is not a pure tautology, but it fails to distinguish from siblings like maps_jobs or maps_results. An agent cannot tell what this tool actually does beyond a vague 'status' notion.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
maps_jobsmaps_resultsmaps_searchmaps_statusB2B lead generation from Google Maps: search, dedupe and email-enrich businesses. Needs API key.
Local business lead extraction with email + phone enrichment from Google Maps.
Google Maps business leads via Apify: name, phone, website, rating.
Google Maps scraper that extracts business contact details: emails, phone numbers, addresses…
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
