Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

measurement_bearing

Calculate the geographic bearing between two points using WGS84 coordinates to determine direction from north.

Instructions

计算两点之间的地理方位角。

该函数使用 Turf.js 库的 bearing 方法,计算从第一个点到第二个点的方位角。

Args: point1: 起点 GeoJSON Point 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 Point 规范 - 坐标系: WGS84 (经度在前,纬度在后) - 示例: '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-75.343, 39.984]}'

point2: 终点 GeoJSON Point 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 Point 规范
    - 坐标系: WGS84 (经度在前,纬度在后)
    - 示例: '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-75.534, 39.123]}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的方位角结果对象 - 类型: 包含 value 和 units 的对象 - 格式: {"value": 方位角数值, "units": "degrees"} - 示例: '{"value": 45.5, "units": "degrees"}'

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 >>> point1 = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-75.343, 39.984]}' >>> point2 = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-75.534, 39.123]}' >>> result = asyncio.run(bearing(point1, point2)) >>> print(result) '{"value": 45.5, "units": "degrees"}'

Notes: - 输入参数 point1 和 point2 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 方位角是从北方向顺时针测量的角度 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
point1Yes
point2Yes

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: the tool uses Turf.js bearing method, requires valid JSON strings, uses WGS84 coordinate system with longitude-first order, measures bearing clockwise from north, returns JSON with value and units, raises exceptions for execution failures/timeouts/format errors, and depends on Node.js environment. This covers most behavioral aspects 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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes) and front-loaded purpose statement. Some technical details in the Notes section could be more integrated, but overall the information is efficiently organized with minimal redundancy.

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, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with output schema present, the description provides complete coverage: clear purpose, detailed parameter specifications, return format documentation, error conditions, examples, and implementation dependencies. The output schema handles return structure, allowing the description to focus on semantics and usage.

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 point1/point2 as strings), the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation: exact JSON format requirements, GeoJSON Point specification, coordinate system (WGS84), coordinate order (longitude, latitude), and concrete examples for both parameters. This adds substantial 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 specific verb '计算' (calculate) and resource '两点之间的地理方位角' (geographic bearing between two points). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bearing calculation specifically, unlike other measurement tools like measurement_distance or measurement_rhumbBearing which have different purposes.

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 technical specifications (GeoJSON format, WGS84 coordinates) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like measurement_rhumbBearing or unit_conversion_bearingToAzimuth. It provides necessary context for correct usage but lacks 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