civilquants

Compute Combined Services Trench BoQ

compute_combined_services_trench

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. Shared utility trench carrying multiple services side by side, each at its own cover depth (water, gas, electricity, telecoms) per NJUG Volume 1. One excavation envelope sized from the services, one disposal, one backfill column, with per-service lane-width bedding, surround, pipe/duct, and warning tape. Renders through CESMM4 Class I, NRM2 Group 41, MMHW Series 1300 and SMM7 Group T for the services, with the shared envelope routing through the existing earthworks/drainage handlers. Example params: trench_length_m=50 m (1–2000), service_spacing_mm=100 mm (50–500), working_space_below_bed_mm=100 mm (0–500). Example call: {"params": {"trench_length_m": 50, "service_spacing_mm": 100, "working_space_below_bed_mm": 100}, "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

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses authentication and tier requirements, the behavior of omitted parameters (defaults), and the ability to receive deliverables with one-shot download URLs. It also explains the rendering standards and the free/paid tier differences (watermarked vs. full).

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 and front-loaded with the most important information (paid tier, core functionality). It is informative but somewhat lengthy; every sentence serves a purpose, though some details (e.g., the list of standards) could be more concise.

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 complexity (nested parameters, multiple standards, optional deliverables, authentication) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects for tool selection and invocation. It provides examples and explains the shared envelope concept, but could further clarify the relationship between parameters and defaults.

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?

The description adds value by explaining the services array structure, providing example parameter values and ranges, and clarifying that omitted parameters use sensible defaults. The input schema itself has descriptions for many parameters, so the description complements rather than replaces schema information.

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 BoQ for a shared utility trench with multiple services, following NJUG Volume 1 and multiple standards (CESMM4, NRM2, MMHW, SMM7). It distinguishes from the free-tier alternative compute_manhole and implies differentiation from compute_single_service_run by emphasizing the shared envelope.

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 the paid-tier requirement and suggests the free-tier alternative compute_manhole. It provides example parameters and a call example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other trench-related siblings (e.g., compute_single_service_run).

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?