Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

booleans_booleanWithin

Check if one GeoJSON geometry is completely inside another geometry. Use this tool to verify spatial containment relationships between geographic features.

Instructions

检查第一个几何图形是否在第二个几何图形内部。

此功能检查第一个GeoJSON几何图形是否完全位于第二个几何图形内部。

Args: geojson1: 第一个GeoJSON对象 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON) - 格式: 任何有效的 GeoJSON 对象 - 示例: '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [1, 1]}'

geojson2: 第二个GeoJSON对象
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON)
    - 格式: 任何有效的 GeoJSON 对象
    - 示例: '{"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[0, 0], [2, 0], [2, 2], [0, 2], [0, 0]]]}'

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 >>> geojson1 = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [1, 1]}' >>> geojson2 = '{"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[0, 0], [2, 0], [2, 2], [0, 2], [0, 0]]]}' >>> result = asyncio.run(booleanWithin(geojson1, geojson2)) >>> print(result) '{"value": true}'

Notes: - 输入参数 geojson1 和 geojson2 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 内部关系要求第一个几何图形完全在第二个几何图形内部 - 边界接触不被视为内部 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geojson1Yes
geojson2Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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 thoroughly describes the tool's behavior: the spatial relationship logic ('完全位于第二个几何图形内部' meaning 'completely inside'), coordinate system requirements ('坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系)' meaning 'coordinate order [longitude, latitude] (WGS84 coordinate system)'), boundary handling, dependencies ('依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境' meaning 'depends on Turf.js library and Node.js environment'), error conditions ('Raises: Exception'), and output format. No contradictions exist.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes) and front-loaded purpose statement. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and complex behavior. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating JSON string format in multiple sections), but overall it's efficient with most sentences adding value.

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 constraints), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values (though output schema exists, it still explains the format), error handling, examples, and important behavioral notes (coordinate system, boundary rules, dependencies). Nothing essential appears missing for an agent to use this correctly.

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 (schema only shows parameter names and types as strings), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation: types, formats, examples, and constraints for both geojson1 and geojson2. It explains they must be valid JSON strings in GeoJSON format with specific coordinate ordering, adding significant value 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 specific verb ('检查' meaning 'check') and resource ('第一个几何图形是否在第二个几何图形内部' meaning 'whether the first geometry is inside the second geometry'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's about spatial containment relationships. The title 'booleanWithin' also aligns with this purpose.

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (checking if one geometry is completely inside another), and the Notes section clarifies boundary conditions ('边界接触不被视为内部' meaning 'boundary contact is not considered inside'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like booleans_booleanContains or booleans_booleanPointInPolygon).

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