connector_google_maps_fetchFetch a Google Maps resource by its ID to retrieve location details for your application.
Fetch a single resource from Google Maps by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description frames this as a retrieval ("Fetch a single resource"), implying a read-only operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct semantic conflict an agent cannot resolve from the text, and the description adds no behavioral context (return shape, auth, side effects) to reconcile it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing is wasted. It is lean to the point of under-specification for an open-world connector, but structurally sound.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter fetch with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what kinds of Google Maps resources the ID can reference and any return-value expectation, leaving gaps given the openWorldHint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents resource_id fully. The phrase "by its ID" reinforces the schema but adds no format, namespace, or example beyond it — baseline 3 for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("Fetch"), resource ("a single resource"), source ("Google Maps"), and lookup key ("by its ID"), which cleanly separates it from connector_google_maps_search. It stops short of naming the sibling or clarifying what a "resource" is, but purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the search alternative (connector_google_maps_search), and no prerequisites or ID-format hints. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this is for direct ID lookups rather than discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.