Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

booleans_booleanPointOnLine

Check if a geographic point lies on a line or multi-line path using GeoJSON data. Determine spatial relationships between points and linear features for geospatial analysis.

Instructions

检查点是否在线上。

此功能检查点是否位于线段或多线的路径上。

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]}}'

line: 线特征
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON)
    - 格式: Feature with LineString or MultiLineString geometry
    - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[0, 0], [2, 2]]}}'

options: 可选参数配置
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 可选字段:
        - ignoreEndVertices: 是否忽略端点 (默认: false)
    - 示例: '{"ignoreEndVertices": 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]}}' >>> line = '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[0, 0], [2, 2]]}}' >>> result = asyncio.run(booleanPointOnLine(point, line)) >>> print(result) '{"value": true}'

Notes: - 输入参数 point 和 line 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 使用点到线段距离算法判断点是否在线上 - 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
pointYes
lineYes
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 the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool uses a distance algorithm with numerical tolerance, depends on Turf.js and Node.js, raises exceptions for failures or bad input, and returns a JSON boolean result. It covers execution environment and error handling, though it could mention performance or limitations more explicitly.

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 but could be more front-loaded; the purpose is stated upfront, but key details like coordinate order and dependencies are buried in notes. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating JSON string format), but overall it's efficient.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains inputs, outputs, errors, examples, and notes on dependencies and algorithms. The output schema is present, so the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond what's provided. It covers all necessary context for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds detailed meaning for all three parameters: 'point' and 'line' as GeoJSON features with specific geometry types and examples, and 'options' with the 'ignoreEndVertices' field and default. This provides complete semantic information beyond the basic schema types.

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 '检查点是否在线上' (check if a point is on a line), specifying the verb '检查' (check) and the resources '点' (point) and '线' (line). It distinguishes from siblings like 'booleans_booleanPointInPolygon' by focusing on line geometries rather than polygons, and from 'measurement_pointToLineDistance' by providing a boolean result rather than a distance measurement.

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, such as using GeoJSON format and WGS84 coordinates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'booleans_booleanContains' or 'booleans_booleanWithin'. It provides context on input requirements but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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