civilquants

Compute Single Service Run BoQ

compute_single_service_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_manhole. Single-service utility run per NJUG Volume 1 — one water main OR one gas main OR one electricity cable duct OR one telecoms duct (or fibre / street-lighting / HV cable duct) in a dedicated trench. Wraps the combined-services-trench engine with a single-band envelope and re-tags emissions back to this assembly. Renders through CESMM4 Class I / NRM2 Group 41 / MMHW Series 1300 / SMM7 Group T (services) on top of the shared earthworks / drainage handlers (excavation, disposal, bedding, surround, fill, tape). Example params: bedding_thickness_m=0.1 m (0.05–0.3), surround_above_crown_m=0.15 m (0–0.5), trench_length_m=50 m (1–1000). Example call: {"params": {"bedding_thickness_m": 0.1, "surround_above_crown_m": 0.15, "trench_length_m": 50}, "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	Parameters for a single-service utility run. Maps neatly to a one-column UI form: the user picks a service type from a dropdown, optionally tweaks cover/OD/material, sets length and trench width, and that's it. The wrapper builds the equivalent ``ServiceBand`` + single-band ``CombinedServicesTrenchParameters`` internally. All defaults align with NJUG 7 minimum-cover guidance for the selected service type (resolved at compute-time via the same ``_NJUG_DEFAULTS`` table that CST consumes).
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses authentication behavior (returns TIER_INSUFFICIENT if not authenticated), output modes (summary, material_schedule, boq, etc.), and optional deliverables (xlsx, dxf, pdf). These add context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which is consistent with a compute operation. 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?

The description is somewhat long but well-structured, starting with the paid-tier warning and moving through purpose, example, and output options. It is front-loaded with critical information but could be more concise by reducing redundancy.

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 (4 top-level parameters, nested objects, multiple standards, deliverables), the description covers authentication, purpose, standards, parameters, and output formats. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

With low schema description coverage (25%), the description compensates by providing example parameter values, ranges, and an example call. It explains important parameters like bedding_thickness_m and service_type. However, many parameters still rely on the schema for their semantics.

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 'Single-service utility run per NJUG Volume 1' and enumerates the specific utilities (water main, gas main, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compute_combined_services_trench by noting it wraps the combined engine with a single-band envelope.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Paid tier only' and mentions a free alternative (compute_manhole). It gives context about when to use this tool (single-service runs) and implies alternatives for multi-service or free-tier use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like compute_combined_services_trench.

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?