goplaces MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Place details

goplaces_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full Google Place Details by place ID after a search: get phone, website, hours, business status, and optional reviews or photos to complete a location lookup.

Instructions

Fetch rich Google Place Details by place ID. Use after search, nearby, autocomplete, or resolve when the user needs phone, website, hours, business status, reviews, or photos. Reviews and photos are opt-in because they are heavier fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`region`	No	Optional CLDR region code, for example 'US' or 'DE'.
`language`	No	Optional BCP-47 language code, for example 'en' or 'en-US'.
`place_id`	Yes	Google place ID, with or without a 'places/' prefix.
`include_ev`	No	Include EV charging connectors, charge rates, and availability.
`detail_level`	No	Field tier to request. Google bills at the most expensive tier in the request, so prefer the cheapest that answers the question: 'ids' returns place IDs only, 'basic' adds name, address, location, type, and a Maps link, and 'full' adds rating, price, hours, phone, and website.	full
`include_photos`	No	Include photo metadata in the details response.
`include_reviews`	No	Include Google reviews in the details response.
`include_atmosphere`	No	Include the most expensive tier: editorial summary, dine-in/takeout/delivery/reservable, accessibility, and parking options.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`error`	No	Present only on failure; the result is also flagged isError.
`hours`	No
`phone`	No
`types`	No
`photos`	No	Google requires showing the author attributions with each photo.
`rating`	No
`address`	No
`dine_in`	No
`parking`	No
`reviews`	No	Google requires showing the author attribution with each review.
`takeout`	No
`website`	No
`delivery`	No
`location`	No
`maps_url`	No	Google Maps link for the place.
`open_now`	No
`place_id`	No	Pass to goplaces_details or as a directions endpoint.
`reservable`	No
`price_level`	No	0 free to 4 very expensive.
`price_range`	No
`primary_type`	No
`accessibility`	No
`directions_url`	No
`business_status`	No
`distance_meters`	No	Present when a routing origin was supplied.
`duration_seconds`	No	Present when a routing origin was supplied.
`editorial_summary`	No
`ev_charge_options`	No
`user_rating_count`	No
`utc_offset_minutes`	No
`international_phone`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that reviews and photos are opt-in and heavier, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it doesn't cover other traits like rate limits or exactly what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and usage triggers. The second sentence about opt-in reviews/photos is a bit of a tangent but still relevant to invocation cost.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the opt-in nature of heavy fields. It could mention when to prefer a different detail tool or the cost implications of detail_level, but it is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters in detail, including detail_level tiers and billing implications. The description only mentions reviews and photos being opt-in, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Fetch) and resource (Google Place Details by place ID). It names the sibling tools (search, nearby, autocomplete, resolve) that produce inputs for this tool, distinguishing it from them clearly.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: after search, nearby, autocomplete, or resolve when the user needs phone, website, hours, business status, reviews, or photos. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative detail tools, but the context is very clear.

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

Deploy Server