civilquants

Compute End-Area Earthworks BoQ

compute_end_area_earthworks

Read-only

Free tier. Renders the MMHW standard only — CESMM4, NRM2 and SMM7 require a paid tier. Anonymous callers welcome. Linear earthworks reach measured by the end-area method per MMHW Series 600 — Simpson's Rule with UK-QS even-ordinate trapezoidal-boundary fallback, with full SHW Series 600 Table 6/1 class tagging, mass-haul diagram (bulking + shrinkage per SHW Cl. 605), cut/fill balance, DISPOSAL vs FILL_GENERAL routing, capping and sub-base build-up, and topsoil strip + replacement. Renders identically across CESMM4 / NRM2 / MMHW / SMM7 with per-class line distinction. Example params: unacceptable_proportion=0 (0–1), topsoil_strip_depth_m=0.15 m (0–1), topsoil_replace_depth_mm=150 mm (0–500). Example call: {"params": {"unacceptable_proportion": 0, "topsoil_strip_depth_m": 0.15, "topsoil_replace_depth_mm": 150}, "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 linear earthworks reach measured by the end-area method. The five area streams in each `CrossSection` are integrated independently along the chainage axis. `topsoil_strip_area` is the planar (m²) strip area at each section; the volume is computed as `trap-integrate(topsoil_strip_area) × topsoil_strip_depth_m / strip_area_mean` — i.e. we multiply the integrated planar strip area by the strip depth to get a volume in m³. Conventionally `topsoil_strip_area` per the designer is planar in m² per running metre (m² of plan area per metre of chainage = m of width), but to keep CrossSection symmetric with the other four area streams we treat it as a true area (m²) at that station and apply the depth multiplication here.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: computation details (integration method, bulking, shrinkage), tier limitations, rendering behavior across standards, and deliverable options. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense, single paragraph with many clauses and details. It could be structured into sections (purpose, usage, examples, limitations) for better readability. While informative, it lacks conciseness.

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 (nested objects, many params, output schema exists), the description covers calculation method, standards, deliverables, tier limitations, example call, and defaults. It doesn't explain return values, but output schema fills that gap. Fairly complete.

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?

Schema has detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., bulking, cross_sections) covering 25% of parameters, plus enums with standard material classes. The tool description adds overall context (example params, integration method) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meaning 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 explicitly states the tool computes end-area earthworks BoQ, specifies the standard (MMHW), method (Simpson's Rule), and provides example parameters and deliverables. It clearly distinguishes from sibling compute tools by naming the specific earthworks and standard.

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 provides clear context: free tier vs paid tier, which standards are supported, anonymous callers welcome, and example call with parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling compute tools for different structures, which is a minor gap.

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?