civilquants

Compute Precast Concrete Outfall Headwall BoQ

compute_headwall_precast

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_headwall. Precast concrete outfall headwall, supplied as a whole unit from a UK manufacturer (Marshalls CPM, FP McCann, Stanton Bonna or equivalent). Catalogue-driven sizing from PHW_300 (300mm pipe ID) to PHW_1500 (1500mm). Includes excavation, concrete or granular bedding, and optional rock-armour scour protection. Routes precast unit through CESMM4 Class H, NRM2 33.9.1, MMHW 500.8.1 (SHW Cl. 511), and SMM7 R12.3.7 via headwall_type=precast attribute discrimination. Example params: bedding_thickness_mm=150 mm (75–300), bedding_overhang_m=0.15 m (0.075–0.3), working_space_each_side_m=0.45 m (0.3–1.5). Example call: {"params": {"bedding_thickness_mm": 150, "bedding_overhang_m": 0.15, "working_space_each_side_m": 0.45}, "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 precast headwall. Catalogue-driven: pick a `size` and the unit's nominal physical dimensions are read from `_CATALOGUE`. Override individual physical fields if a specific manufacturer differs.
`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

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, suggesting read-only behavior, but the description indicates a paid operation that creates deliverables (Excel, DXF, PDF) and returns errors without authentication. This is a clear contradiction, and the description adds context about tier requirements but conflicts 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loads critical tier and availability info. Every sentence adds value, though some parameter details could be streamlined. Generally well-structured.

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, output schema exists), the description covers tier constraints, standards, example usage, and catalogue-driven sizing. It is fairly complete for the domain.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains size enum values, bedding types, example parameter ranges and defaults, and references a catalogue. This compensates for low schema 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 the tool computes a BoQ for precast concrete outfall headwalls, distinguishes from the free-tier sibling 'compute_headwall', and specifies standards and sizing ranges. This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 only', provides alternative 'compute_headwall' for free tier, and describes when to use UK precast headwall. Includes example calls and omitted parameter defaults.

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?