Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

misc_shortest_path

Calculate the shortest path between two geographic points while accounting for obstacles and terrain, returning an optimal route as a GeoJSON LineString.

Instructions

计算两点之间的最短路径。

此功能计算两个地理点之间的最短路径,考虑障碍物和地形因素,返回最优路径线段。

Args: start_point: 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": [-122, 48]}'

end_point: 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": [-77, 39]}'

options: 可选参数配置
    - 类型: str (JSON 字符串) 或 None
    - 可选字段:
        - obstacles: 障碍物 GeoJSON 特征集合
        - resolution: 路径计算分辨率
        - properties: 传递给路径的属性对象
    - 示例: '{"resolution": 100}'

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 >>> start = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-122, 48]}' >>> end = '{"type": "Point", "coordinates": [-77, 39]}' >>> options = '{"resolution": 100}' >>> result = asyncio.run(shortest_path(start, end, options)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "LineString", "coordinates": [[-122, 48], ...]]}}'

Notes: - 输入参数 start_point 和 end_point 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 计算两点之间的最短路径,考虑地理因素 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_pointYes
end_pointYes
optionsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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 does reveal several important behavioral aspects: the tool considers obstacles and terrain factors, returns a GeoJSON LineString, can raise exceptions for various failure modes, depends on Turf.js and Node.js, and has specific coordinate system requirements. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes), but it's quite lengthy. Some information could be more concise, and the purpose statement could be more front-loaded. However, most content serves a clear purpose given the complexity of the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, detailed parameter semantics, return format, error conditions, dependencies, and includes a complete example. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but otherwise it's quite 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. Each parameter (start_point, end_point, options) gets detailed explanations including types, formats, coordinate systems, examples, and for 'options', the specific optional fields available. This adds substantial value beyond the minimal input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '计算两点之间的最短路径' (calculates the shortest path between two geographic points). It specifies the resource (geographic points) and verb (calculate shortest path), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'measurement_distance' or 'misc_nearest_point_on_line' which might have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the same domain (geospatial operations), there's no indication of when this specific shortest path calculation is appropriate versus other distance or path-related tools like 'measurement_distance' or 'misc_nearest_point_on_line'.

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