civilquants

Compute Reinforced Concrete Outfall Headwall BoQ

compute_headwall

Read-only

Free tier. Renders the MMHW standard only — CESMM4, NRM2 and SMM7 require a paid tier. Anonymous callers welcome. Composite RC outfall headwall: back wall pierced by the outfall pipe, splayed wing walls flaring downstream, apron slab, and rock-armour scour protection. In-situ or precast construction; BS 8666:2020 bar schedule composed across back wall, apron and wing walls. Four-standard rendering across CESMM4 / NRM2 / MMHW / SMM7. Example params: pipe_internal_diameter_mm=300 mm (100–1800), pipe_wall_thickness_mm=50 mm (15–120), invert_below_apron_m=0 m (0–1.5). Example call: {"params": {"pipe_internal_diameter_mm": 300, "pipe_wall_thickness_mm": 50, "invert_below_apron_m": 0}, "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	Default
`params`	Yes
`standard`	No	MMHW
`output_mode`	No	full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (which indicates no state modification), the description discloses pricing tiers, output modes (summary, boq, etc.), deliverables (xlsx, dxf, pdf), and watermarks for free tier. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 packed with useful information but is somewhat long and dense. Front-loading key points (free tier, standard restriction) is effective, though some technical details could be organized more clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex nested input schema (4 top-level params, many sub-params) and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential context (standards, outputs, example) but lacks detailed parameter explanations. Output schema exists but is not shown, so return values remain partially unclear.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an example for three key parameters (pipe_internal_diameter_mm, pipe_wall_thickness_mm, invert_below_apron_m) and notes that omitted parameters use defaults. However, many parameters (e.g., cover_mm, concrete_grade) are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 it computes a reinforced concrete outfall headwall BoQ, detailing components (back wall, wing walls, apron, scour protection) and standards (CESMM4, NRM2, SMM7, MMHW). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_headwall_attenuation_outlet and compute_headwall_precast.

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 guidance: free tier for MMHW, paid for others; example params and full call; defaults for omitted parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of headwall type is implicit.

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?