civilquants

Compute Soil-Nailed Slope BoQ

compute_soil_nailed_slope

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. Cut slope stabilised by passively-stressed soil nails with an applied face system. Discriminates between four face systems via the face_system enum: SHOTCRETE_MESH (dominant UK highway-cutting choice per SHW Cl. 644), HARD_FACING_PANEL (premium permanent works), FLEXIBLE_MESH (weathered rock drape), and VEGETATED_GEOGRID (landscape-sensitive schemes). Third member of the earth_structures L1 leaf (after gabion_wall S29 and reinforced_soil_wall S30). Eight variant presets cover all four face systems × representative slope geometries. Routes via three new WorkCategory entries (SOIL_NAIL, SHOTCRETE_FACE, FACE_MESH_REINFORCEMENT) plus reuse of EXCAVATION_GENERAL, DISPOSAL, CONCRETE_REINFORCED, GEOTEXTILE_FILTER, GEOGRID, and TOPSOIL_PLACE. Codes: CESMM4 C.5.X (soil nail) + E.8.10 (shotcrete) + G.5.8 (mesh), NRM2 7.7.X + 5.28.1 + 11.6.1, MMHW 600.20.X + 600.21.1 + 600.22.1 (SHW Cl. 638-639 / Cl. 644), SMM7 D32.3.X (steel piling — soil nails) + D41.6/D41.7 (the NAMED home for the three earth-structures families now). 23rd use of the classed-then-legacy attribute discrimination pattern; 4th use of the declared-then-banded pattern (nail_length_m bands the C.5.X / 7.7.X / 600.20.X / D32.3.X third digit). Example params: slope_height_m=8 m (0.5–25), slope_angle_deg=65 ° (10–89), slope_length_m=30 m (2–500). Example call: {"params": {"slope_height_m": 8, "slope_angle_deg": 65, "slope_length_m": 30}, "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 soil-nailed slope. Geometry interpretation: - ``slope_height_m`` is the vertical extent of the cut slope (top of crest to toe of slope). - ``slope_angle_deg`` is the slope angle from horizontal (typically 50-80° for soil-nailed cuts). - ``slope_length_m`` is the horizontal length along the slope crest — the spatial extent of the assembly along the highway alignment. - ``nail_rows`` is the number of horizontal rows of nails; ``nail_horizontal_spacing_m`` and ``nail_vertical_spacing_m`` give the in-row and between-row centres (m). - ``nail_length_m`` is the design nail length (excavation + bond length; same for all nails in this assembly — for variable-length schemes, instantiate multiple assemblies). - ``nail_inclination_deg`` is the angle below horizontal of the nail axis (typically 10-20°). Face-system attributes (used only if relevant to ``face_system``): - ``shotcrete_thickness_mm`` / ``shotcrete_grade`` / ``face_mesh_designation`` — SHOTCRETE_MESH only. - ``panel_thickness_mm`` / ``panel_concrete_grade`` — HARD_FACING_PANEL only. - ``geogrid_grade`` / ``topsoil_thickness_mm`` — VEGETATED_GEOGRID only.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds behavioral context: paid-tier restriction, computation and return of BoQ files, output formats (xlsx, dxf, pdf), and default parameter handling. It also details the face system enum extensively. No contradictions with annotations. However, some internal jargon ('classed-then-legacy pattern') may be unnecessary, but overall transparency is high.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy (~600 words) and includes many technical details and numbering (e.g., '23rd use of pattern'). While it front-loads the tier restriction and alternative, the later parts become dense with specific standards and code references. It could be more concise and better structured (e.g., separate sections). It earns its sentences but could be trimmed.

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's complexity (nested parameters, multiple enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, key parameters, face system options, and output deliverables. It provides example calls and explains default behaviors. Missing detailed descriptions for some sub-parameters (e.g., steel_grade, geogrid_grade) and does not explain the output schema, but the latter is not required. Overall, it is fairly complete for an agent to use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (25%), but the description compensates by providing detailed meanings for key parameters like face_system, nail_permanence, and the geometry interpretation of the params object. Example param values are given. However, many sub-parameters (e.g., steel_grade, geogrid_grade) lack description. The description adds value beyond the schema but is incomplete for all parameters.

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 it computes the Bill of Quantities for soil-nailed slopes, with specific verb 'compute' and resource 'soil-nailed slope BoQ'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool compute_cantilever_wall, noting it as a free-tier alternative. The description also details the four face systems and standards, making the tool's specific purpose 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 clearly states the tool is paid tier only, requiring an authenticated CivilQuants account, and returns TIER_INSUFFICIENT otherwise. It directs users to the free-tier alternative compute_cantilever_wall. This provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-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 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?