Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

misc_line_overlap

Calculate overlapping segments between two line geometries using GeoJSON input. Returns overlapping line features for spatial analysis.

Instructions

查找两条线的重叠部分。

此功能计算两条线几何图形之间的重叠线段,返回这些重叠部分的几何图形。

Args: line1: 第一条线 GeoJSON 特征或几何图形 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON) - 格式: 支持 LineString、MultiLineString、Polygon、MultiPolygon - 坐标系: WGS84 (经度在前,纬度在后) - 示例: '{"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[115, -35], [125, -30], [135, -30], [145, -35]]}'

line2: 第二条线 GeoJSON 特征或几何图形
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON)
    - 格式: 支持 LineString、MultiLineString、Polygon、MultiPolygon
    - 坐标系: WGS84 (经度在前,纬度在后)
    - 示例: '{"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[115, -25], [125, -30], [135, -30], [145, -25]]}'

options: 可选参数配置
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 可选字段:
        - tolerance: 容差距离
    - 示例: '{"tolerance": 0.01}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的线特征集合 - 类型: GeoJSON FeatureCollection with LineString features - 格式: {"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"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 >>> line1 = '{"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[115, -35], [125, -30], [135, -30], [145, -35]]}' >>> line2 = '{"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[115, -25], [125, -30], [135, -30], [145, -25]]}' >>> result = asyncio.run(line_overlap(line1, line2)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[125, -30], [135, -30]]}}]}'

Notes: - 输入参数 line1 和 line2 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 返回两条线之间的所有重叠线段 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
line1Yes
line2Yes
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 well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), error conditions (JavaScript execution failures, timeouts, input format errors), dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), and coordinate system (WGS84). However, it lacks details on performance or rate limits.

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 is appropriately sized for a complex tool. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating coordinate system info), and the example could be more concise, slightly 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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, return values, errors, examples, and notes on dependencies and constraints. The output schema handles return structure, so the description focuses on semantic context, leaving no significant gaps.

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 providing detailed semantics for all three parameters: it explains data types, formats (GeoJSON with specific geometry types), coordinate systems, examples, and optional configurations for 'options', including the 'tolerance' field. This 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 with specific verbs ('查找', '计算') and resources ('两条线的重叠部分', '重叠线段'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'misc_line_intersect' or 'booleans_booleanOverlap' by focusing on geometric overlap calculation rather than intersection detection or boolean checks.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of what the tool does (e.g., '计算两条线几何图形之间的重叠线段'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'misc_line_intersect' or 'booleans_booleanOverlap', nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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