Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

booleans_booleanPointInPolygon

Determine if a geographic point lies within a polygon using GeoJSON data. This tool checks spatial containment for mapping and geospatial analysis applications.

Instructions

检查点是否在多边形内部。

此功能检查点是否位于多边形或多边形集合的内部。

Args: point: 点特征 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON) - 格式: Feature with Point geometry - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Point", "coordinates": [1, 1]}}'

polygon: 多边形特征
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON)
    - 格式: Feature with Polygon or MultiPolygon geometry
    - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[0, 0], [2, 0], [2, 2], [0, 2], [0, 0]]]}}'

options: 可选参数配置
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 可选字段:
        - ignoreBoundary: 是否忽略边界 (默认: false)
    - 示例: '{"ignoreBoundary": true}'

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 >>> point = '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Point", "coordinates": [1, 1]}}' >>> polygon = '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[0, 0], [2, 0], [2, 2], [0, 2], [0, 0]]]}}' >>> result = asyncio.run(booleanPointInPolygon(point, polygon)) >>> print(result) '{"value": true}'

Notes: - 输入参数 point 和 polygon 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 使用射线法算法判断点是否在多边形内部 - 边界上的点默认被视为内部 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pointYes
polygonYes
optionsNo

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 full burden and does well by disclosing: algorithm used (ray-casting), default boundary behavior (points on boundary considered inside), coordinate system (WGS84), dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), error conditions (JavaScript failures, timeouts, invalid data), and output format. It provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, parameter details, returns, raises, example, and notes sections. Every section adds value, though the example code block is lengthy. The description is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with complex data formats.

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 (spatial analysis with specific data formats), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with output schema provided, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, errors, examples, and implementation details - everything needed for correct tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation: point and polygon require GeoJSON Feature strings with specific geometry types, examples of valid JSON, coordinate order, and options object structure with ignoreBoundary field. This adds comprehensive meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '检查点是否在多边形内部' (check if a point is inside a polygon), which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from siblings like booleans_booleanContains and booleans_booleanWithin by focusing specifically on point-in-polygon testing rather than general spatial relationships.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through the example and notes (e.g., coordinate order, boundary handling), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like booleans_booleanWithin or joins_pointsWithinPolygon. It provides technical context but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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