civilquants

Compute Highway Drainage Channel BoQ

compute_highway_drainage_channel

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_end_area_earthworks. Highway / surface-water drainage channel installation per BS EN 1433 + SHW Cl. 511-514 + HD 33/16. Discriminates between five UK channel product classifications via the channel_type enum (linear_polymer_concrete — ACO-pattern; linear_concrete — Charcon-pattern precast; slot_drain — narrow-slot recessed; combined_kerb_drainage — Beany/Safeticurb integrated unit per SHW Cl. 514; steel_grated_channel — heavy-duty stainless/galvanised). Plus parallel discriminators on two further WorkCategory entries: outfall_type on CHANNEL_OUTFALL (end / branch / side), silt_box_type on CHANNEL_SILT_BOX (standard / heavy-duty / deep-sump). The MMHW Series 500 _highway_drainage_channel handler is the platform's FOURTH 2D-banded handler — code 500.8.{t}.{d} bands by channel_type (5 bands) AND depth_class (4 bands). 5×4 = 20-cell grid. SMM7 routes to R12 (Drainage below ground) — SECOND highway L1 family outside Section Q after S39 lighting → V41. Example params: channel_depth_mm=100 mm (50–1500), channel_length_m=50 m (1–500), outfall_count=1 nr (0–20). Example call: {"params": {"channel_depth_mm": 100, "channel_length_m": 50, "outfall_count": 1}, "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 the highway_drainage_channel assembly. Required: channel_type — ChannelType enum (or string equivalent) depth_class — DepthClass enum (or string) channel_depth_mm — actual channel depth in mm channel_length_m — channel run length in metres Optional: outfall_type — OutfallType enum (or string); defaults to END_OUTFALL when outfall_count > 0 outfall_count — number of primary outfalls (default 1) branch_outfall_count — number of additional branch outfalls (default 0) silt_box_type — SiltBoxType enum (or string); required when silt_box_count > 0 silt_box_count — number of silt boxes (default 0)
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: authentication requirement, specific error message (TIER_INSUFFICIENT), discrimination of channel types, defaults for omitted parameters, and generation of deliverables with download URLs. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond the minimal 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 verbose, containing multiple paragraphs with technical details (e.g., 'second highway L1 family outside Section Q after S39 lighting → V41') that are not essential for agent understanding. It could be more concise and better structured, though it front-loads important usage constraints.

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 complexity (many parameters, nested object, output schema exists), the description covers authentication, alternative, standards, output formats, defaults, and an example call. It omits explicit listing of required parameters beyond the example, but the example suffices. Output schema information is not needed as it exists separately.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for most sub-parameters (depth_class, channel_type, outfall_type, silt_box_type). The description adds context about the 5x4 grid and example parameters but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. Top-level parameters like standard and output_mode lack descriptions, but the description mentions deliverables loosely.

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 highway drainage channel installation per UK standards, specifying verb 'compute' and resource 'Highway Drainage Channel BoQ'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'compute_end_area_earthworks' which is mentioned as a free-tier alternative.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'Paid tier only...use the free-tier alternative compute_end_area_earthworks'. It also implies use for highway drainage channel calculations, not for other drainage structures.

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?