civilquants

Compute Precast Concrete Catchpit / Silt Trap BoQ

compute_catchpit

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. Precast concrete catchpit / silt trap to BS 5911-3 comprising factory-cast monolithic base with integral silt sump (600-900mm below outlet invert), stacked precast chamber rings, precast cover slab, ductile-iron frame and cover (BS EN 124 loading classes), optional step irons, granular or concrete bedding, granular surround, geotextile separator, and excavation. Catalogue-driven sizing from CP_900 (900mm ID) to CP_1800 (1800mm ID). Routes via chamber_type='catchpit' attribute discrimination through CESMM4 K.1.6.x, NRM2 33.7.14, MMHW 500.5.16 (SHW Cl. 511 silt traps), and SMM7 R12.3.13. Distinct from manholes by the silt-sump-below-channel geometry; typical position upstream of petrol/oil interceptor (S24) in a forecourt or service-area drainage train. Example params: invert_depth=2.5 m (0.5–10), bedding_thickness_mm=150 mm (100–300), bedding_overhang_m=0.15 m (0.1–0.3). Example call: {"params": {"invert_depth": 2.5, "bedding_thickness_mm": 150, "bedding_overhang_m": 0.15}, "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	Parameter form for a precast concrete catchpit / silt trap. Catalogue-driven: pick a ``size`` and the chamber's nominal dimensions, masses, and silt-sump depth are read from ``_CATALOGUE``. Override individual fields if a specific manufacturer differs. The catchpit is treated as a manhole-family chamber (same WorkCategory.MANHOLE) discriminated on chamber_type='catchpit'.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses paid tier requirement, authorization failure response, watermarking for free tier, and deliverables behavior. Annotations have readOnlyHint: true, and description adds behavioral context beyond that.

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?

Somewhat verbose but front-loaded with key information. Every sentence is informative. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical.

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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, usage, alternatives, authentication, parameters example, deliverables, and standards. Despite high complexity, the description provides complete guidance.

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 coverage is 25%, but description explains catalogue-driven sizing, example params, and that omitted params use sensible defaults. It adds context for parameters like size and standard beyond the schema.

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 a BoQ for a precast concrete catchpit/silt trap, using BS 5911-3 and several standard methods. It distinguishes from manholes by the silt-sump geometry and typical position upstream of an interceptor.

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?

Explicitly states paid tier and provides free-tier alternative compute_manhole. Gives example params and call, and context for when to use (upstream of petrol/oil interceptor in forecourt drainage).

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?