civilquants

Compute Precast Concrete Kerb Run BoQ

compute_kerb_run

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. Linear precast concrete kerb run on concrete bed and haunch over Type 1 (Class 1A) granular sub-base. Emits excavation, sub-base (v8 SHW-class-aware), concrete bed, kerb units to BS EN 1340 / SHW Cl. 1101, concrete haunch to back face, optional channel block, and disposal. Supports HB2/HB1/SP/BN/EF/ER kerb profiles and CS1/CS2/dish channels. All four standards render with type designators (CESMM4 R.7, NRM2 34.10, MMHW 1100, SMM7 Q10). Example params: kerb_length=25 m (1–1000), bed_thickness_mm=150 mm (75–300), bed_extra_each_side_mm=100 mm (0–300). Example call: {"params": {"kerb_length": 25, "bed_thickness_mm": 150, "bed_extra_each_side_mm": 100}, "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	Input parameters for a kerb run assembly. Geometric defaults match a standard UK HB2 road kerb on 150mm concrete bed over 150mm Type 1 sub-base, with triangular haunch rising to half the kerb height on the back face.
`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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description rightfully focuses on other behaviors: tier restriction (paid) and authentication requirements, sensible engineering defaults for omitted parameters, and optional file generation (xlsx, dxf, pdf). No contradiction 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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: tier/authentication first, then assembly composition, standards, examples, and optional deliverables. Every sentence serves a purpose (e.g., defaults, profiles, call example). Slightly more verbose than necessary but packed with valuable detail.

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 (many parameters, nested object, multiple standards, tier restrictions, file generation), the description covers all essential aspects: authentication, assembly details, supported profiles/channels, example call with ranges, and deliverables. The output schema exists (not shown here) so return values need not be described. Very complete.

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 low (25%), but the description compensates with detailed examples (kerb_length=25 m, range 1–1000; bed_thickness_mm=150 mm, range 75–300; bed_extra_each_side_mm=100 mm, range 0–300) and explains kerb profile types (HB2/HB1/SP/BN/EF/ER) and channel options. It adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for the nested params object.

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 states it computes a precast concrete kerb run BoQ, listing assembly components (excavation, sub-base, concrete bed, kerb units, etc.) and supported standards (CESMM4, NRM2, MMHW, SMM7). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning a free-tier alternative (compute_cantilever_wall) and specifying the linear kerb run context.

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?

Explicitly states 'Paid tier only' and directs to free alternative for non-authenticated users. It describes the typical use case (linear precast concrete kerb on concrete bed and haunch over Type 1 sub-base). While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the purpose is so specific that usage context is clear.

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?