Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

misc_sector

Create sector-shaped polygon areas for geospatial analysis by specifying a center point, radius, and bearing angles to define directional coverage zones.

Instructions

创建扇形多边形区域。

此功能以给定点为中心,创建指定半径和方位角范围的扇形多边形区域。

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: 扇形半径
    - 类型: float
    - 描述: 扇形的半径值
    - 示例: 5.0

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

bearing2: 结束方位角
    - 类型: float
    - 描述: 扇形结束方位角(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: 扇形边界分段数 (默认: 64)
        - properties: 传递给扇形的属性对象
    - 示例: '{"units": "miles", "steps": 32}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON Polygon 特征 - 类型: GeoJSON Feature with Polygon geometry - 格式: {"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "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(sector(center, 5.0, 25.0, 45.0, options)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it creates a GeoJSON Polygon, specifies coordinate systems (WGS84), details error conditions (raises exceptions for failures), and notes dependencies. However, it does not mention performance aspects like rate limits or computational complexity.

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-loaded purpose. However, it is moderately verbose due to detailed parameter explanations, which are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating coordinate order in multiple places), but overall it earns its length.

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 (specified in Returns), the description is highly complete. It covers input semantics, output format, error handling, dependencies, and usage examples. The output schema details reduce the need for return value explanations, making the description adequately comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive semantic details for all parameters: center (GeoJSON format, coordinate order), radius (units implied via options), bearing1/bearing2 (measurement from north), and options (units, steps, properties). Examples and format specifications add significant value beyond the basic 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 ('创建扇形多边形区域') and resources ('以给定点为中心,创建指定半径和方位角范围的扇形多边形区域'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sector polygon creation, unlike other geometric operations in the list such as buffers, circles, or transformations.

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 and examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js) which provides some context, but lacks direct guidance on scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools like 'transformation_circle' or 'misc_line_arc'.

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