google-maps-transit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_place_details

get_place_details

Read-only

Retrieves detailed place information by ID from a prior search: phone, website, opening hours, summary, and user reviews. Use it to check hours, links, or feedback for a specific result.

Instructions

Returns detailed information about a specific place: phone number, website URL, full opening hours for each day of the week, a short editorial summary, and up to 5 user reviews.

        Always requires a place ID obtained from a prior search_places call.
        Use this as a follow-up when the user wants full details about one of the search results, e.g.
        • "What are the opening hours for that first restaurant?"
        • "Does it have a website I can check?"
        • "Show me the reviews for the top result."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`place_id`	Yes	The place ID returned by search_places (typically starts with 'ChIJ…')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique place ID
`name`	Yes	Place display name
`hours`	Yes	Weekday opening-hours descriptions, e.g. ['Monday: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM', 'Tuesday: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM', …]
`phone`	Yes	National phone number; null if unavailable
`types`	Yes	Google Place type tags
`rating`	Yes	Average star rating (1.0–5.0); null if no ratings
`address`	Yes	Formatted address
`reviews`	Yes	Up to 5 most relevant user reviews
`summary`	Yes	Short editorial summary of the place; null if unavailable
`website`	Yes	Website URL; null if unavailable
`open_now`	Yes	Whether the place is currently open; null if unknown
`price_level`	Yes	Relative price: FREE \| INEXPENSIVE \| MODERATE \| EXPENSIVE \| VERY_EXPENSIVE
`user_rating_count`	Yes	Total number of user reviews

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real value by scoping the returned data (notably the hard cap of 'up to 5 user reviews' and full weekly hours rather than a summary). It does not mention rate limits, quota costs, or whether fields like hours can be missing for some places, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload, then the hard prerequisite, then illustrative intents. Every sentence earns its place and the bulleted examples aid selection without bloat.

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?

For a single-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the prerequisite chain, the returned content, and when to reach for it. No missing decision-relevant information.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with its source and format ('ChIJ…') in the schema itself. The description's instruction to source the ID from a prior search_places call largely restates the schema, adding only mild emphasis; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (details about a specific place), then enumerates the concrete payload: phone, website, full weekly opening hours, editorial summary, and up to 5 reviews. This clearly separates it from search_places, which returns result lists rather than one place's detail.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Always requires a place ID obtained from a prior search_places call') and frames the tool as a follow-up to search_places, with three concrete user-intent examples that select this tool over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server