civilquants

Compute Mass Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall BoQ

compute_gravity_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 mass concrete gravity retaining wall (typical C20/25 to C25/30) with trapezoidal cross-section, retaining soil by self-weight rather than structural action. Eight variant presets exercise the parameter form — landscape, highway boundary, trapezoidal, stepped-front, toe-projection, keyed-base, stepped-foundation, and battered-back-vertical-front. Routes via wall_type='gravity' attribute discrimination through CESMM4 F.5.3, NRM2 11.2.3, MMHW 1700.5 (SHW Cl. 1704 structural concrete), and SMM7 E10.2.3. Reinforcement default zero (gravity walls are nominally unreinforced); optional nominal face mesh available via nominal_face_reinforcement_kg_per_m3 parameter. Includes excavation (battered or supported, level or stepped foundation), blinding, drainage system (subsoil drain + granular surround + geotextile separator), Class 6N backfill, disposal, and formwork to vertical and battered faces. 13th use of the classed-then-legacy attribute discrimination pattern, and first use in the retaining wall family — opening the wall moat for subsequent counterfort (S30), anchored (S31) and bored pile (S32) variants. Example params: stem_height=3 m (1.5–6), stem_thickness_top=0.4 m (0.2–1), stem_thickness_bottom=1.3 m (0.4–2.5). Example call: {"params": {"stem_height": 3, "stem_thickness_top": 0.4, "stem_thickness_bottom": 1.3}, "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 mass concrete gravity 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 3 m high standard highway boundary wall.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is stateless. The description adds context: describes computation details (inclusions like excavation, drainage), output deliverables (Excel, DXF, PDF), and tier behavior (TIER_INSUFFICIENT error). No contradictory behavior disclosed. Slight verbosity but adds value beyond annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is lengthy and includes internal implementation details (e.g., '13th use of the classed-then-legacy pattern') that are irrelevant for an agent. Front-loaded with tier info, but overall verbose. Could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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 complexity (4 top-level params, nested params, output schema exists), the description covers tool purpose, inputs (including defaults and ranges), outputs (deliverables), and usage context. Output schema handles return details. Some param descriptions missing, but overall adequate for an experienced agent.

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 description coverage is only 25% (low). The description adds meaning for key parameters like stem_height, stem_thickness_top/bottom (with ranges) and mentions variant presets. However, many parameters are not explained (e.g., toe_length, heel_length, back_profile, etc.). The example call helps but incomplete compensation for low coverage.

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 a mass concrete gravity retaining wall BoQ, specifying wall type, cross-section, and materials. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool compute_cantilever_wall as a free-tier alternative, and mentions variants. The verb 'compute' and resource 'Mass Concrete Gravity Retaining Wall BoQ' are specific.

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 paid tier requirement and provides the free-tier alternative (compute_cantilever_wall). Includes example parameters and example call. Describes when to use, including variant presets and standard codes. Clear guidance on deliverables and how to pass them.

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?