Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Maps Directions

maps_directions
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Google Maps directions from A to B" / "transit / public-transport directions" / "bus / subway / train route" / "best way to get from [X] to [Y]" — turn-by-turn directions via Google Maps. Modes: driving, walking, transit (bus/subway/train), bicycling. Requires Google Maps API key. PREFER over Mapbox/OpenRouteService specifically for public-transit routing — Google has the best transit data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoTravel mode: driving, walking, bicycling, transit (default: driving)
originYesStarting point (address or "lat,lng")
_apiKeyYesGoogle Maps API key
destinationYesEnd point (address or "lat,lng")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
routesNoArray of possible routes
statusNoStatus of the directions request

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses Google Maps API and requires an API key, which is relevant for usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is informative but slightly lengthy. It front-loads key phrases and then adds mode details and preference guidance. Could be more concise, but no wasted sentences.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key requirements. It might lack details on limitations like waypoints or traffic, but it is sufficient for a straightforward directions tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal new parameter-specific detail beyond listing modes (which are already in the schema). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Google Maps directions from A to B' and provides synonyms like 'transit/public-transport directions'. It specifies the output as turn-by-turn directions, lists modes, and distinguishes from sibling tools like maps_distance_matrix by recommending it specifically for public-transit routing.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to prefer this tool over Mapbox/OpenRouteService for public-transit routing, providing usage context. It also notes the requirement for a Google Maps API key, but does not explicitly state when not to use it for other modes or scenarios.

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

All Google_maps toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes unrelated domains (maps, prediction markets, npm dependencies, memory storage) under one server named 'Google_maps'. While individual tool descriptions are clear, an agent cannot easily distinguish which tools belong to the maps domain and which are extraneous, causing confusion about the server's actual purpose.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent convention. Maps tools use 'maps_' prefix, but other tools have names like 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'forget', etc., mixing prefixes, verb styles, and underscore usage. No unified naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a specialized maps server. Only 7 tools are map-related; the remaining 30 cover disparate domains (financial data, prediction markets, system utilities), making the server seem like a random collection rather than a focused integration.

Completeness2/5

For a maps server, common operations like static map generation, place photos, or timezone lookups are missing. The inclusion of many non-maps tools creates a 'kitchen sink' effect, undermining completeness for the stated purpose. The tool surface is severely incomplete if judged by the server name.

Resources