Skip to main content
Glama

civilquants

by com.civilquants

Compute Reinforced Soil Wall (RSW) BoQ

compute_reinforced_soil_wall
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. Reinforced soil retaining wall (RSW) using granular fill reinforced with horizontal layers of geogrid or steel tie strips, with one of four facing systems: precast concrete panels (Reinforced Earth™ / VSL Retained Earth style), segmental modular blocks (Allan Block / Keystone), wraparound soft face (vegetated or biodegradable mat), or Terramesh-style steel mesh face (re-using the S29 gabion vocabulary). The SECOND member of the earth_structures L1 leaf (after gabion_wall at S29), the SIXTH member of the wall family, the FIFTH structural system, and the FIRST wall family member with a face-area-primary measurement basis (m² of face + m² × layers of geogrid, both m²; every prior wall body was m³). 17th use of the classed-then-legacy attribute discrimination pattern. Routes via four new WorkCategory entries (RSW_FACING_PANEL, RSW_MODULAR_BLOCK, RSW_WRAPAROUND_FACE, RSW_TIE_STRIP) plus the GEOGRID category (whose handler is gap-filled in CESMM4/NRM2/MMHW this session) plus re-use of GABION_BASKET on the STEEL_MESH_FACE variant. Codes: CESMM4 E.8.4-8 (Class E Earthworks §E.8 stabilisation), NRM2 5.23-27 (Group 5 Excavating and filling), MMHW 600.15-19 (Series 600 Earthworks; SHW Cl. 624 reinforced earth retaining structures), and SMM7 D41.3/D41.4/D41.5/D20.21/D20.14.2 (D41 — Crib walls / gabions / REINFORCED EARTH — the NAMED home, now serving TWO wall families). Eight variant presets exercise all four RSWFacing values (2/2/2/2 split). Example params: wall_height=6 m (0.5–12), wall_length=40 m (5–200), depth_into_fill_m=4.5 m (0.35–15). Example call: {"params": {"wall_height": 6, "wall_length": 40, "depth_into_fill_m": 4.5}, "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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYesParameter form for a reinforced soil wall. A single dataclass that — through combinations of its fields and the ``rsw_facing`` discriminator — produces all eight VARIANT_PRESETS plus arbitrary user-specified geometries across all four RSWFacing options. Sensible defaults yield a 6m highway-approach PRECAST_PANEL wall.
standardNoMMHW
output_modeNofull_json
deliverablesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms this is a compute operation. Additionally, it discloses tier requirements, authentication needs, omitted parameter defaults, and the ability to request deliverables like xlsx/dxf/pdf, adding value beyond 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 overly verbose, containing esoteric details like '17th use of the classed-then-legacy attribute discrimination pattern' that are irrelevant for tool selection. While the first sentence is front-loaded, the length detracts from clarity.

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 (nested parameters, multiple standards, facing variants, deliverables), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, defaults, codes, and example calls. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, so completeness is high.

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?

Despite low schema coverage (25%), the description extensively explains the parameter structure, default values, and facing variants. It gives example parameters and sensible defaults, compensating for the missing schema descriptions at the top level.

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 title and description clearly state this tool computes a Bill of Quantities for reinforced soil walls. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the wall type, facing systems, and referencing a free-tier alternative (compute_cantilever_wall). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 notes this is paid tier only and directs users to the free alternative compute_cantilever_wall if authentication is lacking. It also provides typical use cases, standards, and example parameters, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All civilquants toolsInspect
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