civilquants

Compute Carrier Pipe Run (banded) BoQ

compute_carrier_pipe_run

Read-only

Paid tier only. Calling this without an authenticated CivilQuants account returns TIER_INSUFFICIENT — sign up at https://civilquants.com/pricing or use the free-tier alternative compute_manhole. Linear carrier-pipe measurement assembly with full four-standard depth-banded rendering. CESMM4 Class I (I.{material}.{bore}.{depth}, 9 depth bands), NRM2 Group 33 (33.1.{bore}.{depth}, equivalent banding), MMHW Series 500 (500.1.{bore}.{depth}, 11 depth bands extending to 6 m for highway-scale carriers per SHW Cl. 501), SMM7 R12 (R12.1.{bore}.{depth}, 10 depth bands starting at 1 m for housing-scale carriers). Twelve variant presets exercise all 9 CESMM4 Class I depth bands and all 5 carrier materials (vitrified clay / concrete / HDPE / ductile iron / uPVC) — 12 × 4 = 48 distinguishable BoQ rows from a single parameter form. 19th use of the classed-then-legacy attribute discrimination pattern, FIRST applied to a Class I (Pipework) category — discriminator here is material itself, with the CESMM4 handler routing through the 5 Class I material sub-class digits while NRM2/MMHW/SMM7 stay within their respective groups but distinguish material in the description. Companion assembly: connection_to_existing (S32 sibling pair) — the enumerated extra-over connection line that ties a carrier run into an adopted asset. Example params: diameter_mm=225 mm (100–2400), invert_depth_m=1.8 m (0.5–10), run_length_m=30 m (1–2000). Example call: {"params": {"diameter_mm": 225, "invert_depth_m": 1.8, "run_length_m": 30}, "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	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	Parameters for a carrier pipe run. Geometric defaults yield a DN225 vitrified clay carrier at 1.8 m average invert depth over a 30 m run — the textbook small-civils foul carrier described in the QS measurement examples.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that authentication is required for paid tier, that it returns deliverables like xlsx/dxf/pdf conditionally, and that it is read-only (consistent with annotations). It adds context about the return format and tier limitations beyond the readOnlyHint.

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 very long and includes many implementation details (e.g., discriminator pattern, companion assembly history) that are not essential for an agent. It could be more concise while retaining key information.

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?

The description covers authorization, parameter defaults, example calls, deliverable options, and standards. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, enums), this provides all necessary context for correct invocation without needing external lookup.

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?

Although schema description coverage is only 25%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role, providing example values, and clarifying defaults and enum meanings (e.g., material families, use descriptions).

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 it computes BoQ for carrier pipe runs according to four standards (CESMM4, NRM2, MMHW, SMM7) with specific class references. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the companion tool 'connection_to_existing' and the free-tier alternative 'compute_manhole'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Paid tier only' and provides an alternative free tool, 'compute_manhole'. It also explains that omitted parameters use sensible defaults and gives example parameter calls, guiding effective usage.

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?