Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Maps Geocode

maps_geocode
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Geocode [address] via Google Maps" / "Google Maps coordinates of [place]" / "lat lng for [address] using Google" — convert an address to lat/lng + formatted address via Google Maps Platform. Premium-quality geocoding (highest accuracy for US addresses); requires Google Maps API key. Use when Mapbox/MapTiler/OpenStreetMap miss the address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_apiKeyYesGoogle Maps API key
addressYesAddress to geocode (e.g., "1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoStatus of the geocoding request
resultsNoArray of geocoding results

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about premium-quality geocoding and highest accuracy for US addresses, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core action and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 the simple two-parameter nature of the tool, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits. No additional details are necessary.

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%, with adequate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema, simply restating that the address is geocoded and an API key is needed. No parameter constraints or formats are elaborated further.

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 the tool converts an address to lat/lng and formatted address via Google Maps, using action verbs like 'geocode' and 'convert'. It distinguishes from sibling maps tools by specifying the conversion from address to coordinates.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when Mapbox/MapTiler/OpenStreetMap miss the address' and notes that a Google Maps API key is required, guiding the agent on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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