Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

helper_polygon

Create GeoJSON polygon features from coordinate arrays to represent geographic areas, plots, and land parcels for spatial analysis and mapping applications.

Instructions

创建多边形特征对象。

此功能根据坐标点数组创建多边形特征,用于表示区域、地块等面状地理要素。

Args: coordinates: 多边形坐标数组 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的数组) - 格式: [[[lng1, lat1], [lng2, lat2], [lng3, lat3], [lng1, lat1]]] - 示例: '[[[125, -15], [113, -22], [154, -27], [144, -15], [125, -15]]]'

properties: 属性对象
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 格式: 键值对对象
    - 示例: '{"name": "area", "type": "park"}'

options: 可选参数配置
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 可选字段:
        - bbox: 边界框数组 [minX, minY, maxX, maxY]
        - id: 特征的标识符
    - 示例: '{"bbox": [112, -28, 155, -14], "id": "polygon1"}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON Polygon Feature - 类型: GeoJSON Feature with Polygon geometry - 格式: {"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [...]}, "properties": {...}} - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[125, -15], [113, -22], [154, -27], [144, -15], [125, -15]]]}, "properties": {"name": "area"}}'

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 >>> coordinates = '[[[125, -15], [113, -22], [154, -27], [144, -15], [125, -15]]]' >>> properties = '{"name": "area"}' >>> result = asyncio.run(polygon(coordinates, properties)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[125, -15], [113, -22], [154, -27], [144, -15], [125, -15]]]}, "properties": {"name": "area"}}'

Notes: - 输入参数 coordinates、properties 和 options 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 多边形必须形成闭合环,首尾坐标点必须相同 - 支持带孔的多边形(多个环) - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coordinatesYes
propertiesNo
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by describing the return format (GeoJSON Polygon Feature), error conditions (JavaScript execution failures, timeouts, input format errors), dependencies (Turf.js library and Node.js environment), and specific constraints (coordinates must form closed rings, WGS84 coordinate system).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but quite long with multiple sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes). While well-structured, it could be more front-loaded with the core purpose. Some information in the Example section duplicates what's already in the Returns section, reducing efficiency.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, return values, error conditions, examples, and important constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still provides valuable format details.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does this excellently by providing detailed parameter documentation including types, formats, examples, optional fields, and constraints for all three parameters (coordinates, properties, options). The description adds significant value beyond the minimal input 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: '创建多边形特征对象' (creates polygon feature objects) with specific details about representing regional/areal geographic features. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'helper_point', 'helper_lineString', and 'helper_feature' by focusing specifically on polygon creation with coordinate arrays.

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: for creating polygon features representing areas/regions. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools list which includes other geometry creation tools like 'helper_point' and 'helper_lineString'.

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