civilquants

Compute Stormwater Attenuation Tank BoQ

compute_attenuation_tank

Read-only

Free tier. Renders the MMHW standard only — CESMM4, NRM2 and SMM7 require a paid tier. Anonymous callers welcome. Stormwater attenuation tank supporting two configurations: modular geocellular crates (high void ratio, compact footprint) or large-bore pipe arrays (1.5m+ ID concrete pipes in parallel runs). Excavation may be open-battered or vertical-sided with sheet pile support. Example params: tank_length=30 m (2–200), crate_width=6 m (1–20), crate_height=1.2 m (0.4–3.6). Example call: {"params": {"tank_length": 30, "crate_width": 6, "crate_height": 1.2}, "standard": "MMHW"}. Omitted parameters use sensible engineering defaults. Pass deliverables=["xlsx","dxf","pdf"] (any subset) to also receive one-shot download URLs in the same call: Excel BoQ (both tiers, watermarked free) plus the dimensioned DXF (CAD) and PDF drawing sheets (paid tier).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`params`	Yes
`standard`	No	MMHW
`output_mode`	No	full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions that the tool is free tier with limitations, anonymous callers are welcome, and omitted parameters use sensible defaults. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation, as the tool performs calculations without mutating data. This adds valuable context beyond annotations.

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 moderately sized and contains essential information: tier restrictions, configuration options, example call, and deliverables. It is front-loaded with critical constraints. A slightly more structured format could improve readability, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many parameters, nested object, multiple standards) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers free tier limitations, example usage, and defaults. It could have elaborated on the meaning of each output mode, but overall it is sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description compensates by explaining key parameters like tank_length, crate_width, and crate_height with default ranges. It states that omitted parameters use defaults, but does not describe all parameters individually. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 a stormwater attenuation tank Bill of Quantities. It specifies two tank configurations (crates or pipes) and excavation types, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools that compute other civil engineering structures.

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 explicitly notes that only the MMHW standard is available in the free tier, while CESMM4, NRM2, and SMM7 require a paid tier. It includes an example call and explains the deliverables parameter. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus its siblings.

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

All civilquants 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but the large number of closely related structures (e.g., multiple wall types, drainage inlets) could cause some confusion. Descriptions are thorough, mitigating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent `compute_<noun>` pattern. However, several administrative tools use different verbs (get, list, save, etc.), introducing mild inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

56 tools is high but defensible given the broad civil engineering domain. The set covers many specific structures and workflows, though some tools could be merged or scoped more tightly.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of common civil engineering tasks (walls, foundations, drainage, pavements, highways, utilities). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit bridge or tunnel tool), but the core domain is well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?