steel-tools

Coating / Surface Area

steel_coating_area

Surface area to coat for an AISC shape: ft² per foot from the cross-section perimeter, piece/lot area with length and qty, optional interior faces for galvanized tubes and gallons at a supplied coverage rate. Published nominal values for estimating and orientation, not design guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`qty`	No	Optional piece count (default 1) when a length is given
`length_ft`	No	Optional length in feet for a piece/lot area
`designation`	Yes	AISC designation, e.g. W21X50, HSS6X6X3/8, Pipe4STD
`include_inside_faces`	No	Tubes only: add interior surface, as hot-dip galvanizing coats vented HSS/pipe interiors. Default false (outside only).
`coverage_sqft_per_gal`	No	Optional practical coverage rate from the coating datasheet, to estimate gallons

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 discloses calculation basis (cross-section perimeter), optional interior faces for galvanized tubes, and coverage-rate-based gallons. It also sets expectations as nominal estimates.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences convey the full purpose, key parameters, calculation modes, and an important caveat without redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers what is calculated, parameter relationships, and the estimating limitation. It lacks explicit return structure, but no output schema exists and the primary outputs are clearly implied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already documents all 5 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: how length/qty combine for piece/lot area, when interior faces apply, and how coverage rate yields gallons.

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 computes 'Surface area to coat for an AISC shape' and enumerates specific outputs (ft² per foot, piece/lot area, gallons), distinguishing it from sibling weight/bolt/etc. tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clarifies it is for 'estimating and orientation, not design guidance,' giving a clear usage boundary. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is well-scoped enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All steel-tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: lookups (bolt pretension, gauge, pipe, shape), weight calcs (plate, section, shape, takeoff), area calc, reference, MTR screening, and PDF/document generators (NCR, RFI, RFQ, markup). Even the three weight tools are explicitly differentiated by input type, and the descriptions cross-reference each other to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names share the 'steel_' prefix and follow a 'resource_property/action' pattern (e.g., steel_plate_weight, steel_rfi_generate). However, the suffix is not uniformly a verb or noun: some end with a noun (steel_coating_area, steel_pipe_schedule) and others with a verb (steel_mtr_check, steel_ncr_generate), creating minor inconsistency in the naming convention.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized domain. Each tool covers a distinct need for structural steel estimating and documentation, and the count feels comprehensive without being bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides thorough coverage of the structural steel domain: reference lookups, weight/size calculations, coating area, MTR checking, takeoff rollups, and formal document generation (NCR, RFI, RFQ) plus PDF markup. There are no obvious missing operations for a steel estimating/quality document workflow, and the tools together enable a complete estimating and documentation process.

Resources

Need Help?