civilquants

Compute Pipe Bedding and Surround BoQ

compute_pipe_bedding

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_manhole. Linear pipe trench with class-driven bedding and surround. Strategy pattern on (BeddingContext × BeddingClass): Highway (HA 40/01 / MMHW Series 500) vs Building (BS EN 1610 / NRM2 §33), Class N/F/B/S/A/Z. Emits trench excavation, granular bed, surround or concrete cradle/encasement, selected backfill, disposal and pipework. All four standards render with class and clause references. Example params: pipe_internal_diameter_mm=300 mm (100–1800), pipe_wall_thickness_mm=50 mm (10–200), pipe_length=25 m (1–500). Example call: {"params": {"pipe_internal_diameter_mm": 300, "pipe_wall_thickness_mm": 50, "pipe_length": 25}, "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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: paid tier, authentication requirement (TIER_INSUFFICIENT), and one-shot download URLs for deliverables. Does not contradict annotations. Lacks explicit mention of side effects beyond computation.

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?

Description is comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. Front-loaded with critical info (paid tier, alternative). Well-structured with logical flow: constraints, strategy, standards, example, deliverables. Could trim redundant phrases but overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Covers most necessary aspects: purpose, limitations, standards, defaults, example, outputs. Missing detailed return value description but output schema likely provides that. Adequate for a complex tool with many parameters and deliverables.

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 0% (many parameters lack descriptions). Description compensates by explaining the strategy pattern (BeddingContext × BeddingClass), providing example parameter ranges and values, and detailing deliverables. Adds meaning beyond schema enums with usage context.

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?

Clearly states the tool computes pipe bedding and surround BoQ. Differentiates from sibling 'compute_manhole' by specifying it's the paid-tier alternative. Includes specific verb ('compute') and resource ('pipe bedding and surround BoQ').

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, mentions the free-tier alternative ('compute_manhole'), and describes when to use (linear pipe trench). Provides example parameters and call syntax. Clearly guides the agent on prerequisites and alternatives.

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?