google-maps-mcp

Maps Search Places

maps_search_places

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for places by text query or coordinates and return addresses, ratings, hours, contact details, and booking links for local discovery.

Instructions

Find places like Google Maps search (Places API searchText shape): {places: [{id, displayName, formattedAddress, location, googleMapsUri, primaryTypeDisplayName, categories, rating, userRatingCount, internationalPhoneNumber, nationalPhoneNumber, websiteUri, priceLevel, priceRangeText, timeZone, currentOpeningHours, hoursStatusText, reservationLinks [{uri, provider}], menuUri}]}. reservationLinks are the booking sites Google lists (provider: the site's domain, e.g. sevenrooms.com), empty when none. Put the city in textQuery or pass latitude/longitude.

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": {
      "textQuery": "<textQuery>"
    },
    "name": "maps_search_places"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`latitude`	No	Bias results near here
`pageSize`	No	Places to return (1-20)
`longitude`	No
`textQuery`	Yes	What you'd type into Google Maps search
`radiusMeters`	No	Bias radius

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that 'reservationLinks' is empty when Google lists no booking sites, but otherwise spends its behavioral budget restating the result shape rather than disclosing things like rate limits, result ranking, or fallback when no results match.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the closing sentence is efficient, but the middle is a long inline enumeration of the return object that duplicates the existing output schema. That blob consumes most of the description's length without adding decision-relevant information.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description did not need to explain return values, yet it does so at length while omitting the one thing the schema cannot supply: how this tool relates to maps_get_place and maps_show_places. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by clarifying the relationship between the two geo inputs and textQuery ('Put the city in textQuery or pass latitude/longitude'), which the schema alone does not convey. It says nothing extra about radiusMeters or pageSize beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find places') and anchors it to a familiar mental model ('like Google Maps search'), with the underlying API shape named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, maps_get_place, leaving the agent to infer that this is query-based search rather than lookup by identifier.

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?

The closing sentence gives practical guidance on how to combine textQuery with latitude/longitude, which is real usage advice. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over maps_get_place or maps_show_places, and no exclusions or preconditions, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server