Google Maps MCP Server

geocode_reverse

Convert latitude and longitude coordinates into human-readable addresses with detailed address components for location-based services and mapping applications.

Instructions

Convert geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) into human-readable addresses with detailed address components. Useful for location-based services and mapping applications.

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": {
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lng": "<lng>"
    },
    "name": "geocode_reverse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lat`	Yes	Latitude
`lng`	Yes	Longitude
`language`	No	Language code for results (ISO 639-1, e.g., "en", "es", "fr")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-devJul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'detailed address components' but does not specify what components, limitations, or behavioral traits like accuracy, rate limits, or required permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short at two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the function. The second sentence is somewhat generic but not excessive. Could be more concise by removing redundant 'useful for' phrase.

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?

The tool has low complexity with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description adequately states the core function but lacks details on return format and address components. Sibling tools offer richer functionality, but this description is minimally sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or constraints.

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 tool converts coordinates to addresses, which is reverse geocoding. It uses specific verb 'Convert' and resource 'coordinates into addresses', distinguishing it from forward geocoding (geocode_search) among siblings.

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 description mentions 'Useful for location-based services and mapping applications', which implies context but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server