civilquants

Compute Gabion Retaining Wall BoQ

compute_gabion_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. Modular gabion retaining wall built from welded or hexagonal-mesh wire baskets filled with hard angular graded stone (SHW Cl. 622). The first non-concrete retaining structure in the platform and the FIRST member of the earth_structures L1 leaf — opening Phase E. Spans four structural forms via the gabion_form discriminator: STACKED_RECTANGULAR (standard highway boundary), STACKED_STEPPED (architectural / heritage), BATTERED (tall walls with back batter), and FACING_MATTRESS (Reno-type mattresses for slope facing / scour protection). Eight variant presets exercise the parameter form covering all four gabion_form values: highway boundary, landscape, stepped front, heritage stepped, battered, river training, scour apron, and tall battered. Routes via three new WorkCategory entries (GABION_BASKET, GABION_FACING_MATTRESS, STONE_FILL) — the first session where the classed-then-legacy discriminator pattern is applied to fundamentally new measurement vocabulary rather than to existing concrete categories. Codes: CESMM4 E.8.1-3 (Class E — Earthworks), NRM2 5.20-22 (Group 5 — Excavating and filling), MMHW 600.12-14 (Series 600 — Earthworks; SHW Cl. 622/623), and SMM7 D41.1/D41.2/D20.20 (D41 — Crib walls / gabions / reinforced earth — the only standard with a NAMED home). 16th use of the discriminator pattern, first applied to new WorkCategories rather than legacy ones. Example params: wall_height=3 m (0.1–8), wall_length=25 m (5–200), basket_length_m=2 m (1–3). Example call: {"params": {"wall_height": 3, "wall_length": 25, "basket_length_m": 2}, "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 gabion retaining wall. A single dataclass that — through combinations of its fields and the ``gabion_form`` discriminator — produces all eight VARIANT_PRESETS plus arbitrary user-specified geometries across all four GabionForm options. Sensible defaults yield a 3m highway-boundary STACKED_RECTANGULAR wall with 1m × 1m × 2m galvanised hexagonal baskets filled with 100-200mm graded stone.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description extensively describes behavioral traits: paid tier, authentication, output options (deliverables: xlsx, dxf, pdf), default parameters, and the discriminator pattern for structural forms. It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the paid tier error and output features. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, and annotations state readOnlyHint=true, which may be contradictory given the tool creates new WorkCategory entries.

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 excessively long (over 500 words) with dense technical details about structural forms, codes, and historical context. While informative, it lacks conciseness; a shorter version would be more efficient for an AI agent to parse. Key information is front-loaded (paid tier, authentication), but the latter half is verbose.

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 tool's complexity (four forms, many parameters, paid tier, multiple output modes), the description covers virtually all relevant aspects: authentication, alternative tool, parameter examples, defaults, output deliverables, codes, and discriminator patterns. It is extremely thorough and leaves few gaps for an agent to infer.

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 beyond the schema by providing example parameters and call, listing defaults for key parameters (wall_height=3m, wall_length=25m, basket_length_m=2m), and explaining the deliverables parameter. Schema coverage is low (25%), but the description compensates with examples and practical usage notes, though it doesn't detail every parameter.

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 Bill of Quantities for a modular gabion retaining wall. It distinguishes from siblings by being the first non-concrete retaining structure and explicitly names the free alternative compute_cantilever_wall. The four structural forms and eight variant presets are detailed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description starts with 'Paid tier only' and specifies authentication requirements, explicitly warning about TIER_INSUFFICIENT error. It names the free-tier alternative compute_cantilever_wall. It also provides example parameters and a call, guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?