Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

misc_line_arc

Generate circular arc lines in geospatial data by specifying a center point, radius, and bearing angles for geographic visualization and analysis.

Instructions

创建圆弧线段。

此功能以给定点为中心,创建指定半径和方位角范围的圆弧线段。

Args: center: 中心点 GeoJSON 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, 40]}'

radius: 圆弧半径
    - 类型: float
    - 描述: 圆弧的半径值
    - 示例: 5.0

bearing1: 起始方位角
    - 类型: float
    - 描述: 圆弧起始方位角(从北方向顺时针测量)
    - 示例: 25.0

bearing2: 结束方位角
    - 类型: float
    - 描述: 圆弧结束方位角(从北方向顺时针测量)
    - 示例: 45.0

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'
        - steps: 圆弧分段数 (默认: 64)
        - properties: 传递给圆弧线的属性对象
    - 示例: '{"units": "miles", "steps": 32}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON LineString 特征 - 类型: GeoJSON Feature with LineString geometry - 格式: {"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [...]}}

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 >>> center = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-75, 40]}' >>> options = '{"units": "miles", "steps": 32}' >>> result = asyncio.run(line_arc(center, 5.0, 25.0, 45.0, options)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[-75, 40], ...]}}'

Notes: - 输入参数 center 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) - 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
centerYes
radiusYes
bearing1Yes
bearing2Yes
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 full burden and does well: it explains the tool creates a GeoJSON LineString, specifies coordinate system (WGS84), mentions dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), and documents error conditions (Raises section). However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics like execution time or resource usage.

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 redundancy exists (e.g., coordinate order mentioned multiple times), but overall efficient for a complex tool with many parameters.

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 (5 parameters, geometric operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, documents all parameters thoroughly, shows return format, provides examples, and notes dependencies. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description focuses appropriately on usage context.

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, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation: detailed descriptions of all 5 parameters including types, formats, examples, coordinate systems, and optional fields with defaults. The Args section adds 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 tool's purpose: '创建圆弧线段' (create arc line segment) with specific details about using a center point, radius, and bearing angles. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'misc_sector' (which might create filled areas) and other line tools by focusing specifically on arc creation with geometric parameters.

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 parameter explanations (e.g., '以给定点为中心,创建指定半径和方位角范围的圆弧线段'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'misc_sector' or other geometric creation tools. It provides technical context but lacks explicit 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