Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

measurement_midpoint

Calculate the midpoint between two geographic points using GeoJSON coordinates to find central locations for mapping and spatial analysis.

Instructions

计算两点之间的中点。

该函数使用 Turf.js 库的 midpoint 方法,计算两个 GeoJSON 点特征之间的中点。

Args: point1: 第一个 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": [144.834823, -37.771257]}'

point2: 第二个 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": [145.14244, -37.830937]}'

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": [144.9886315, -37.801097]}}'

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": [144.834823, -37.771257]}' >>> point2 = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [145.14244, -37.830937]}' >>> result = asyncio.run(midpoint(point1, point2)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Point", "coordinates": [144.9886315, -37.801097]}}'

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) - 计算的是两点之间的球面中点 - 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. It discloses the tool's dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), computational method (spherical midpoint), error conditions (JavaScript execution failures, timeouts, malformed data), and output format. It doesn't mention performance characteristics or rate limits, but covers essential behavioral aspects.

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-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise (e.g., the example includes full import and execution code). Overall, most sentences earn their place by providing essential information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, errors, dependencies, and provides a working example. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to fully document return format, though it helpfully does.

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 string types), the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It specifies the exact GeoJSON format, coordinate system, coordinate order, and provides concrete examples for both point1 and point2 parameters, adding significant value beyond the minimal 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 a specific verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('两点之间的中点' - midpoint between two points). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on midpoint calculation rather than other geometric operations like distance, bearing, or clustering.

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 about input requirements (valid JSON strings, coordinate order, WGS84 system), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'measurement_center' or 'measurement_centroid'. It provides technical prerequisites but not 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