Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Maps Distance Matrix

maps_distance_matrix
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Travel time matrix between [N] origins and [M] destinations" / "drive-time grid via Google Maps" / "transit times between addresses" — N×M distance and duration matrix between many points via Google Maps. Modes: driving, walking, bicycling, transit. Use for delivery routing, multi-stop optimization, transit-heavy planning.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoTravel mode: driving, walking, bicycling, transit
_apiKeyYesGoogle Maps API key
originsYesPipe-separated origins (e.g., "New York|Boston")
destinationsYesPipe-separated destinations (e.g., "Philadelphia|Washington DC")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsNoDistance/duration for each origin-destination pair
statusNoStatus of the distance matrix request
origin_addressesNoGeocoded origin addresses
destination_addressesNoGeocoded destination addresses

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the output is distance and duration matrix, and listing supported modes. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat verbose with multiple quotes and slashes. It could be more concise by removing redundant phrasing like 'drive-time grid via Google Maps' and 'transit times between addresses' which restate the same idea.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, usage context, and modes adequately for a matrix 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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description reiterates the pipe-separated format and provides examples, but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it computes a travel time matrix between N origins and M destinations, with multiple travel modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like maps_directions by explicitly being a matrix tool for multiple points.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for delivery routing, multi-stop optimization, transit-heavy planning.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context clearly differentiates it from single-pair direction tools like maps_directions.

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