civilquants

Compute Embankment Cross-Section BoQ

compute_embankment_cross_section

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_end_area_earthworks. Geometry-driven embankment per MMHW Series 600 — trapezoidal cross-section with crest width, asymmetric side slopes (h:v), and per-chainage height profile. Auto-generates the CrossSection series and delegates volume integration + mass-haul + standards routing to the end_area_earthworks engine, inheriting the four-standard rendering invariant. Auto-computes topsoil strip footprint from toe-to-toe envelope and supports an optional founding-strip excavation below ground level. Example params: crest_width_m=10 m (3–30), side_slope_h_per_v=2 (1–4), strip_envelope_offset_m=0.5 m (0–2). Example call: {"params": {"crest_width_m": 10, "side_slope_h_per_v": 2, "strip_envelope_offset_m": 0.5}, "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	Inputs for a geometry-driven embankment cross-section assembly. The assembly generates a `CrossSection` list from the profile + geometry parameters, builds an `EndAreaEarthworksParameters` from the result + the material/method parameters carried here, and delegates compute to `EndAreaEarthworks.compute(...)`. Per Session 12 Q2 decision: left and right slopes are exposed separately, both defaulting to `side_slope_h_per_v` so the common symmetric case is a single-parameter call.
`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

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing tier requirements, error conditions, delegation to end_area_earthworks engine, auto-computation of topsoil strip, and support for optional excavation. It also explains the inheritance of rendering invariants and the one-shot download URL mechanism for deliverables.

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 with clear sections: tier warning, core functionality, example, and deliverables. It front-loads critical information (paid tier, alternative) and uses bullet-like phrasing. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed without losing substance.

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 objects, sibling tools), the description covers the main workflow, tier restrictions, and deliverables. It explains the delegation and core features. However, it lacks detailed parameter descriptions for most parameters, relying on defaults and an example. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but parameter descriptions are still lacking.

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?

The schema has many parameters with 25% coverage, but the description adds value by explaining crest_width_m, side_slope_h_per_v, and strip_envelope_offset_m with examples and sensible defaults. However, it does not explain the meaning of most other parameters like method, bulking, material classes, which are critical for proper use. The example call helps but is insufficient for full understanding.

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 an embankment cross-section BoQ, explicitly distinguishing from the free-tier alternative compute_end_area_earthworks. It specifies the geometry-driven approach per MMHW Series 600 and lists key parameters, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly states it is paid-tier only and directs to the free-tier alternative compute_end_area_earthworks. It provides example parameters and a full example call, enabling correct invocation. It also explains when to omit parameters and how to request deliverables.

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?