civilquants

Compute Counterfort Retaining Wall BoQ

compute_counterfort_wall

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_cantilever_wall. In-situ reinforced concrete counterfort retaining wall. Discrete RC counterforts on the retained face enhance moment capacity, making the wall economic for 4-10m retained heights (above cantilever-economic range, below anchored-wall range). Includes base slab, thin curtain wall, counterforts at configurable centres, drainage, and backfill. Eight VARIANT_PRESETS exercise the 'one parameter form, eight variants, four standards' moat #1 claim. Routes via wall_type='counterfort' attribute discrimination: CESMM4 F.6.3, NRM2 11.3.3, MMHW 1700.4.2 (SHW Cl. 1704), SMM7 E10.3.2. Example params: stem_height=5 m (3–12), curtain_thickness=0.35 m (0.2–0.6), toe_length=0.6 m (0–3). Example call: {"params": {"stem_height": 5, "curtain_thickness": 0.35, "toe_length": 0.6}, "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). Pass freeboard (clearance below the wall top, m) instead of the retained-height field to set the retained fill by clearance — the engine back-calculates it as stem − freeboard. Supplying both is rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	Parameter form for an in-situ RC counterfort retaining wall. A single dataclass that — through combinations of its fields — produces all eight VARIANT_PRESETS plus arbitrary user-specified geometries. Sensible defaults yield a 5 m high standard highway counterfort wall with counterforts at 4.0 m centres.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`freeboard`	No
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses tier requirements, error responses (TIER_INSUFFICIENT), watermarking, and deliverable behavior beyond annotations. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower; description adds useful context about payment and output restrictions. No contradictions with 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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections. Front-loaded with critical tier information. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly condensed. No redundant repetition of schema.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (many nested params, multiple standards, deliverables), the description covers tier, error handling, alternatives, parameter usage, standards, and output options. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. Complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 20%, but the description adds meaning by explaining parameter usage like freeboard vs retained-height, deliverables format, and example calls. Nested params object has its own rich schema descriptions for enums. The description provides context that the schema alone does not.

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 states 'Compute Counterfort Retaining Wall BoQ', uses specific verb 'compute' and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the free-tier alternative compute_cantilever_wall and referencing other wall types for height ranges. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 when to use (4-10m retained heights) and when not (above cantilever-economic range, below anchored-wall range). Provides explicit alternative (compute_cantilever_wall for free tier) and mentions prerequisites (CivilQuants account). Comprehensive usage guidance.

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?