civilquants

Compute Permeable Pavement (CIRIA C753 SuDS) BoQ

compute_permeable_pavement

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. Permeable pavement build-up per CIRIA C753 — The SuDS Manual Chapter 20. Covers the three principal UK permeable surface types (Permeable Block Paving per BS 7533-13; Porous Asphalt per SHW Cl. 938; Porous no-fines Concrete per CIRIA C753) and the three CIRIA infiltration regimes (System A full infiltration; System B partial / sides-tanked; System C no infiltration / fully tanked). Emits excavation + formation prep + tanking liner (Systems B/C) + geotextile separator + Class 3 open-graded reservoir sub-base + laying course (PBP) + permeable surface + perforated outlet pipe (Systems B/C) + disposal. Routes the reservoir sub-base, the tanking liner, and the permeable surface through three parallel classed-then-legacy discriminators (is_reservoir_sub_base, is_pavement_tanking, pavement_family) across all four standards. SMM7 PBP routes to Q25 (block pavings — different trade) while PA/PC stay at Q22 (asphalt trade) — UK trade-boundary platform principle. First launch-class assembly built entirely on existing WorkCategory vocabulary. Example params: length=12 m (0.5–500), width=5 m (0.5–100), reservoir_thickness_mm=350 mm (150–1000). Example call: {"params": {"length": 12, "width": 5, "reservoir_thickness_mm": 350}, "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 permeable pavement assembly. Geometric defaults match a 12m × 5m residential drive with PBP surface and System A (full infiltration) — the dominant UK small-civils SuDS use case.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses paid tier, error response (TIER_INSUFFICIENT), deliverables behavior (watermarked for free tier), and UK trade-boundary platform principle. Does not reveal error handling for invalid inputs, but annotations (readOnlyHint=true) are consistent. Minor gap: no mention of performance or rate limits.

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 structured with clear sentences covering tier, standards, parameters, and example. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but effectively communicates necessary info without fluff.

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 has an output schema (not shown, but context says true), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, inputs, tier, and deliverables adequately. Missing: explanation of output_mode and standard options, but that is mitigated by output schema and sibling context.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining defaults (e.g., length=12m, width=5m, reservoir_thickness_mm=350) and providing an example call. It clarifies the deliverables parameter and the 'params' object structure. Schema descriptions exist for many inner properties, so description complements well.

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 specifies the tool computes permeable pavement BoQ per CIRIA C753, covering three UK surface types and infiltration regimes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compute_flexible_pavement and compute_rigid_pavement by its specific domain, and even names a free-tier alternative (compute_end_area_earthworks).

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, provides a free alternative, and includes example parameters and a full example call. It also mentions omitted parameters use sensible defaults, guiding usage. No ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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?