Busca no Google Maps e devolve o dobro de estabelecimentos por consulta, com coordenadas de latitude e longitude. Use quando precisar de cobertura ou do mapa; para volume, busca_google_lugares custa um terço do preço. Aceita até 100 consultas por chamada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pais | No | ||
| local | No | ||
| idioma | No | ||
| limite | No | ||
| pagina | No | ||
| periodo | No | ||
| consultas | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns twice as many establishments per query, includes coordinates, and accepts up to 100 queries per call. This is useful operational information without contradicting the 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?
The description is three concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose and unique selling point are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and the call limit. 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?
While the description covers purpose, alternatives, and one key limit, it is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema. Key parameter semantics are missing, and the 'periodo' enum values are not explained. An agent would likely need additional information to invoke the tool confidently with non-default parameters.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity, but it only indirectly clarifies 'consultas' by mentioning the 100-query limit. The other six parameters (pais, local, idioma, limite, pagina, periodo) are left completely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their expected formats and meanings.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches Google Maps and returns establishments with latitude/longitude coordinates. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool busca_google_lugares by mentioning the alternative by name, making the tool's identity immediately clear.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('quando precisar de cobertura ou do mapa') and when to prefer the alternative ('para volume, busca_google_lugares custa um terço do preço'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no need for inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The twelve busca_google_* tools are each tied to a distinct Google vertical, so selecting the right one for a search task is usually straightforward. The only real ambiguity is between busca_google_lugares and busca_google_mapas, and between authenticate/connect, but the descriptions do clarify their different use cases.
The core search tools follow a highly consistent busca_google_<category> snake_case pattern in Portuguese. However, the six platform-management tools use generic English names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info, creating a mixed convention across the set.
At 18 tools, the server is in the borderline-heavy range. The 12 search tools are individually justified, but the inclusion of 6 unrelated platform/metadata tools makes the overall count feel inflated for a server titled 'Buscador Google'.
The search surface is impressively broad: web, news, images, videos, shopping, academic, patents, places, maps, reviews, suggestions, and page reading are all covered. Minor niche Google surfaces like Trends or Books are absent, but core search workflows have no dead ends.