civilquants

Compute Rigid (Concrete) Pavement Build-Up BoQ

compute_rigid_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. Rigid pavement build-up: optional capping (Class 6F) + Type 1 (Class 1A) granular sub-base + optional separation membrane + PQC slab (URC, JRC, or CRCP variant) with joint formwork (transverse contraction, longitudinal construction, expansion) and reinforcement (dowel bars + tie bars + optional fabric mesh for JRC, continuous longitudinal for CRCP). Routes the slab and its joints/reinforcement through the v12 is_pavement_slab discrimination to pavement-specific codes across all four standards (CESMM4 Class R, NRM2 Group 34.7, MMHW Series 1000, SMM7 Q21). Sub-base and capping route through the v8 FILL_SUB_BASE/FILL_CAPPING SHW-class-aware handlers. Three pavement-type defaults (URC/JRC/CRCP) per DMRB CD 226. Reinforcement scheduled per BS 8666:2020 (shape 00 dowels and tie bars; mass-only mesh and CRCP continuous). Example params: length=50 m (0.5–2000), width=7 m (0.5–30), sub_base_thickness_mm=150 mm (100–500). Example call: {"params": {"length": 50, "width": 7, "sub_base_thickness_mm": 150}, "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 rigid pavement assembly. Defaults: 50m × 7m urban distributor — JRC with 25m bay length, 230mm slab on 150mm Type 1 sub-base, A393 mesh mid-depth. Tie bars at 3.5m lane boundary. No capping by default.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description's focus on computation (no mutations). Description adds detail about internal routing logic (v12 slab discrimination, v8 fill handlers) and deliverables (xlsx, dxf, pdf), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 lengthy but well-structured: starts with tier info, then components, example, and deliverables. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but for a complex tool with many parameters, the detail is warranted.

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 the essential aspects: pavement types, reinforcement standards, deliverables, and tier restrictions. The output schema handles return value details. Minor gaps exist (e.g., interaction of certain parameters), but overall sufficient.

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 25% (low), but the description compensates by explaining key parameters with example values and ranges (e.g., length=50m, width=7m, sub_base_thickness_mm=150mm). It also discusses defaults and sensible engineering defaults for omitted parameters. Not every parameter is covered in detail, but the overall semantics are clear.

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 it computes rigid pavement build-up BoQ, lists components (capping, sub-base, membrane, slab, reinforcement) and standards (CESMM4, NRM2, MMHW, SMM7). It differentiates from siblings like compute_flexible_pavement and compute_permeable_pavement by specifying 'rigid (concrete)' and mentioning 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Paid tier only' and describes authentication requirement. Provides example parameters and defaults, and mentions free-tier alternative. Does not explicitly contrast with other pavement tools, but the specificity of 'rigid pavement' and mention of DMRB CD 226 guidelines provides sufficient context.

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?