Google Maps MCP Server

maps_reverse_geocode

Convert latitude and longitude coordinates into a human-readable address. Provide the latitude and longitude values to get the corresponding street address.

Instructions

Convert geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) into a human-readable address

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "maps_reverse_geocode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`latitude`	Yes	Latitude
`longitude`	Yes	Longitude

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the basic transformation. It never explicitly confirms a read-only lookup, nor does it describe the return format beyond 'human-readable address', error behavior for invalid coordinates, or any rate-limiting/coverage caveats.

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?

A single 10-word sentence that front-loads the operation and wastes no words. It is concise without being tautological.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity two-parameter tool, the essential contract (coordinates in, address out) is present and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no examples, the agent is left without details on the returned address structure or edge-case behavior.

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 both parameters documented and range-constrained, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal framing — that these numbers are geographic coordinates for address conversion — without adding units, datum, format, or examples 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 states a specific verb ('convert'), explicit inputs (latitude/longitude), and a clear output (human-readable address), making the reverse-geocoding operation unmistakable. The input/output asymmetry inherently distinguishes it from the geocoding sibling, so an agent can tell the direction without inspecting either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent that has coordinates and needs an address can infer this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as maps_geocode or maps_place_details.

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

Deploy Server