Skip to main content
Glama
devsanthoshmk

Google Maps MCP Server

by devsanthoshmk
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have distinct purposes: search_google_maps finds places by query, and get_place_details retrieves details for a known place ID. There is slight overlap in the returned fields, but the use cases are clearly different.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use a clear verb_noun pattern (search/get + google_maps/place_details). The naming is consistent, though 'get_place_details' could be more symmetrical as 'get_google_maps_place' for perfect parity.

    Tool Count2/5

    Only two tools for a Google Maps server is very limited. Maps APIs typically support additional operations like directions, geocoding, or place photos, so the tool count feels too small for the implied scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The core search and detail retrieval are present, but critical operations like navigation (directions), geocoding (address to coordinates and reverse), and place photo fetching are missing, creating significant gaps for common map-related tasks.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns structured place data listing 10 fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, API quota implications, or any constraints on search frequency or result freshness. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

    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 main action. It then lists the return fields, which is useful but slightly verbose for a search tool. It earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (4 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the search scope and return fields. It could be improved by noting that results are limited by Google's ranking (not just the limit parameter) and how to formulate effective queries beyond the examples.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It lists the return fields but not how parameters affect them. Since the schema is already thorough, no penalty is applied.

    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 uses specific verbs ('Search') and resources ('Google Maps for local businesses, places, points of interest, and services'), clearly distinguishing it from its sibling tool 'get_place_details' which would provide details on a specific place.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description implies this tool is for broad searches (businesses, places, POIs), and the sibling tool name 'get_place_details' suggests the alternative for specific place info. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the lookup behavior (by ID or name) and the return fields (address, phone, etc.), but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the place is not found. Adequate but not comprehensive.

    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?

    The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the key purpose, parameter usage, and return value hints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error behavior), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

    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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two formats for the 'place' parameter (Google Place ID vs. name/location), which goes beyond the schema's description. This additional context justifies a 4.

    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 specifies the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information for a single specific Google Maps place or business'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_google_maps' by emphasizing single-place lookup vs. searching.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description explains when to use this tool (to get details for a known place via ID or name) and implicitly distinguishes from searching. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

gmaps-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

gmaps-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/devsanthoshmk/gmaps-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server