Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

measurement_along

Calculate coordinates at a specific distance along a GeoJSON line. Input a LineString and distance to find the corresponding point location along the path.

Instructions

在线上计算指定距离处的点位置。

此功能沿着给定线段从起点开始移动指定距离,找到对应的坐标点位置。

Args: line: GeoJSON LineString 特征或几何图形 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON) - 格式: 必须符合 GeoJSON LineString 规范 - 坐标系: WGS84 (经度在前,纬度在后) - 示例: '{"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[-83, 30], [-84, 36], [-78, 41]]}'

distance: 沿线的距离
    - 类型: float
    - 描述: 从起点开始沿线的距离值
    - 范围: 0 到线的总长度(超出范围会自动截断到端点)
    - 示例: 200.0

options: 可选参数配置
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 可选字段:
        - units: 距离单位 (默认: 'kilometers')
            - 有效值: 'miles', 'nauticalmiles', 'kilometers', 'meters', 'yards', 'feet', 'inches'
        - 其他 Turf.js 支持的选项参数
    - 示例: '{"units": "miles"}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON Point 特征 - 类型: GeoJSON Feature with Point geometry - 格式: {"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Point", "coordinates": [lng, lat]}} - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-82.5, 33.2]}}'

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 >>> line = '{"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[-83, 30], [-84, 36], [-78, 41]]}' >>> options = '{"units": "miles"}' >>> result = asyncio.run(along(line, 200, options)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-82.5, 33.2]}}'

Notes: - 如果距离超过线长度,会自动返回线终点 - 如果距离为负值,会自动返回线起点 - 输入参数 line 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) - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYes
distanceYes
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 and does so well by disclosing key behaviors: distance truncation at endpoints for out-of-range values, automatic handling of negative distances, JSON format requirements, coordinate order, and dependency on Turf.js/Node.js. It also notes error conditions, adding valuable 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes), but is somewhat lengthy due to detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more front-loaded; the core purpose is stated upfront, but technical details dominate.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, error handling, examples, and behavioral notes, providing all necessary context for effective use despite the lack of structured metadata.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all three parameters: 'line' (format, coordinate system, example), 'distance' (range, truncation behavior, example), and 'options' (optional fields, default units, valid values, example). It adds essential meaning not present in 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 with specific verbs ('计算', '找到') and resources ('点位置', '坐标点位置'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on distance-based point calculation along a line, unlike other measurement tools like 'measurement_distance' or 'measurement_length'.

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 for calculating points at specified distances along lines, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'misc_nearest_point_on_line' or 'measurement_midpoint'). It provides context on input requirements but no comparative advice.

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