Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

booleans_booleanParallel

Check if two line segments are parallel by analyzing their geometric direction vectors in GeoJSON format.

Instructions

检查两条线段是否平行。

此功能检查两条线段是否在几何上平行。

Args: line1: 第一条线段 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON) - 格式: Feature with LineString geometry - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[0, 0], [1, 1]]}}'

line2: 第二条线段
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON)
    - 格式: Feature with LineString geometry
    - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[0, 1], [1, 2]]}}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的布尔结果 - 类型: 包含 value 的对象 - 格式: {"value": true 或 false} - 示例: '{"value": true}'

Raises: Exception: 当 JavaScript 执行失败、超时或输入数据格式错误时抛出异常

Example: >>> import asyncio >>> line1 = '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[0, 0], [1, 1]]}}' >>> line2 = '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[0, 1], [1, 2]]}}' >>> result = asyncio.run(booleanParallel(line1, line2)) >>> print(result) '{"value": true}'

Notes: - 输入参数 line1 和 line2 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 平行关系基于线段的方向向量 - 允许一定的数值容差 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
line1Yes
line2Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by detailing the return format (JSON string with a boolean value), error conditions (JavaScript execution failures, timeouts, input format errors), dependencies (Turf.js library, Node.js environment), and operational notes (e.g., coordinate order, numerical tolerance, parallel relation based on direction vectors). This covers key behavioral aspects without contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, Raises, Example, and Notes, making it easy to navigate. It is appropriately sized, with each sentence adding value (e.g., explaining dependencies, formats, and examples). However, the Example section includes Python code that might be slightly verbose but remains relevant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (geometric operation with specific dependencies), the description is complete. It covers input requirements, output format (aligned with the output schema), error handling, and environmental dependencies. With no annotations and an output schema present, the description adequately fills all gaps, providing a comprehensive understanding for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It specifies that 'line1' and 'line2' are JSON strings in GeoJSON format with LineString geometry, includes examples, and notes requirements like valid JSON and coordinate order ([longitude, latitude] in WGS84). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '检查两条线段是否平行' (checks if two line segments are parallel), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'booleans_booleanClockwise' or 'booleans_booleanCrosses' beyond the general 'booleans_' prefix, though the function name 'booleanParallel' is self-explanatory in context.

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. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context for application (e.g., geometric analysis), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'booleans_booleanEqual' or 'booleans_booleanDisjoint', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/es3154/turf-mcp'

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