SiteCheck Company Records

Google Places text search: finds businesses by text

b2b_google_maps

Read-only

Google Places text search: finds businesses by text (e.g. 'plumber Austin TX') and returns name, address, coordinates, place category, business status, Google place ID and Maps link. Uses the operator's Google Maps Platform key; Google's terms apply. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "b2b_google_maps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Business type and place, 2 to 100 characters
`limit`	No	Rows to return, 1 to 20 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026
RemovedOct 23, 2026
First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral facts: the call is paid ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), failed calls are not charged, and the operator's Google Maps key plus Google's terms govern the data. Missing only rate limits, quota behavior, and error modes for a paid third-party call.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, return shape, then cost/legal terms. No filler, and the payment clause is shortened to the essentials, though the payment-rail detail (Base, Solana or Arc) is slightly dense for a tool-purpose description.

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 two-parameter read-only text search with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, return fields, cost, and legal provenance. The output schema carries return-value detail, so the description does not need to, and the remaining gap is only operational (rate limits, geographic coverage).

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 100%, so the schema already documents both params including the 2-100 character bound and default limit of 10. The description's only added value is the example query showing the expected 'business type + place' format for q, which is marginal since the schema already says 'Business type and place'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("finds businesses by text") and illustrates it with a concrete query example ('plumber Austin TX'), then enumerates the returned fields. Among a large sibling set of business directories, it identifies itself as the Google Places local-business lookup, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbors like b2b_yellowpages or b2b_thomasnet.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the example query rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for free-text local business discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of sibling alternatives for registry-based or review-based lookups.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?