Skip to main content
Glama
es3154

Turf-MCP

by es3154

transformation_tesselate

Convert complex polygons into triangles for geospatial analysis. This tool processes GeoJSON polygons using Turf.js to generate triangle meshes suitable for computational geometry applications.

Instructions

将多边形分割为三角形。

该函数使用 Turf.js 库的 tesselate 方法,将给定的多边形分割为三角形集合。

Args: polygon: GeoJSON Polygon 特征 - 类型: str (JSON 字符串格式的 GeoJSON) - 格式: 必须符合 GeoJSON Polygon 规范 - 坐标系: WGS84 (经度在前,纬度在后) - 示例: '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[11, 0], [22, 4], [31, 0], [31, 11], [21, 15], [11, 11], [11, 0]]]}}'

Returns: str: JSON 字符串格式的三角形集合 GeoJSON FeatureCollection - 类型: GeoJSON FeatureCollection with Polygon features - 格式: {"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [...]}}]} - 示例: '{"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[11, 0], [22, 4], [31, 0], [11, 0]]]}}, ...]}'

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 >>> polygon = '{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[11, 0], [22, 4], [31, 0], [31, 11], [21, 15], [11, 11], [11, 0]]]}}' >>> result = asyncio.run(tesselate(polygon)) >>> print(result) '{"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"type": "Feature", "geometry": {"type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [[[11, 0], [22, 4], [31, 0], [11, 0]]]}}, ...]}'

Notes: - 输入参数 polygon 必须是有效的 JSON 字符串 - 坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度] (WGS84 坐标系) - 返回的三角形集合覆盖原始多边形的整个区域 - 依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
polygonYes

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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it uses Turf.js and Node.js, specifies input/output formats (JSON strings, GeoJSON), coordinate system (WGS84), error conditions (JavaScript failures, timeouts, bad data), and notes coverage of the original polygon area. However, it lacks details on performance, rate limits, or side effects like memory 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?

The description is well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes), making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating JSON format details). Most sentences add value, though it could be slightly more concise in the example and notes.

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 complexity (geometric operation with specific dependencies), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers purpose, input details, output format, errors, example, and technical notes (dependencies, coordinate system). The output schema handles return values, so no need to duplicate that in the description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides extensive semantic details for the single parameter 'polygon': type (string), format (JSON string, GeoJSON Polygon), coordinate system (WGS84), example, and validation notes (must be valid JSON). This goes well beyond the basic schema, ensuring the agent understands how to format the input correctly.

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 specific action ('将多边形分割为三角形' - tessellate polygons into triangles) and resource (GeoJSON Polygon). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on tessellation, unlike other transformation tools like simplify, buffer, or union, which perform different geometric operations.

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 when tessellating polygons into triangles, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other transformation tools like triangulation or grid methods). It provides technical constraints (e.g., input format, coordinate system) but lacks comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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