Google Maps MCP Server

geolocation_estimate

Estimate device location using WiFi access points and cell towers via the Google Geolocation API.

Instructions

Estimate location from WiFi/cell data using Google Geolocation API

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "geolocation_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cell_towers`	No	Array of cell towers detected by the device
`consider_ip`	No	Whether to use IP address for location estimation
`wifi_access_points`	No	Array of WiFi access points detected by the device

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-devJul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'estimate location' but fails to mention rate limits, accuracy, required permissions, response format, or behavior with insufficient data.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids fluff, though it could be expanded slightly to cover usage without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how to structure the input. The absence of output schema further burdens the description, which fails to compensate.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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's purpose: estimating location from WiFi and cell data using the Google Geolocation API. It specifies the verb 'estimate', the resource 'location', and the data sources, distinguishing it from siblings like ip_geolocate which uses IP data.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ip_geolocate for IP-based location or geocode_reverse for address-to-coordinates. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, 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