Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Maps Place Details

maps_place_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Hours / phone / reviews of [business]" / "Google business info for [place]" / "is [restaurant] open" — full details for a Google Place: address, phone, hours, website, ratings, user reviews. Requires a place ID from maps_place_search. Use after search to drill into one specific business.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_apiKeyYesGoogle Maps API key
place_idYesGoogle Place ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoDetailed place information
statusNoStatus of the place details request

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: returns full details (hours, phone, reviews, etc.) and relies on a prior search step, aiding agent understanding beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with front-loaded example queries. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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, the description adequately covers the tool's inputs and outputs. It lists key return fields (address, phone, hours, etc.) and links to the required precursor 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 both parameters. The description reinforces that place_id comes from `maps_place_search` but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 starts with natural language queries like 'Hours / phone / reviews of [business]' and clearly states it provides full details for a Google Place: address, phone, hours, website, ratings, user reviews. It also distinguishes from sibling tool `maps_place_search` by specifying it requires a place ID from that search.

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?

Explicit guidance to 'Use after search to drill into one specific business' and requires a place ID from `maps_place_search`. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context is clear enough.

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