Skip to main content
Glama

Google_maps

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Maps Reverse Geocode

maps_reverse_geocode
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Reverse geocode [lat,lng] via Google Maps" / "what address is at [coords] in Google" — coordinates → address via Google Maps Platform. Requires Google Maps API key. Use when you need Google's street-address parsing (most accurate for US).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude
lngYesLongitude
_apiKeyYesGoogle Maps API key

Output Schema

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the prerequisite of a Google Maps API key and a quality note about US accuracy, adding value beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence is essential. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description provides purpose, usage context, and a prerequisite. It lacks sibling differentiation but is otherwise complete. An output schema covers return values, so no need for more.

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 three parameters (lat, lng, _apiKey). The description does not add significant new meaning; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline 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 the verb 'reverse geocode' and the resource 'coordinates' with output 'address'. It uses a dual description that is specific and differentiates from forward geocoding sibling (maps_geocode) implicitly.

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 'Use when you need Google's street-address parsing (most accurate for US)', providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare to alternatives like maps_geocode.

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