civilquants

Compute Concrete Strip Foundation BoQ

compute_strip_foundation

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. Linear reinforced concrete strip foundation, level or stepped. Closes the P1 launch set alongside pad_foundation. Integrates BS 8666:2020 reinforcement scheduling. Stepping is the v10 demonstration of cross-cutting standards-handler discrimination. Example params: length=10 m (1–100), width=0.75 m (0.3–2.5), thickness=0.35 m (0.15–1.5). Example call: {"params": {"length": 10, "width": 0.75, "thickness": 0.35}, "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 the strip foundation assembly. Defaults are tuned to a typical UK domestic / light commercial strip: 750mm wide, 350mm deep, 10m long, founded ~700mm below GL on 75mm blinding. Reinforcement is 2T16 bottom + 2T12 top with T8 transverse distribution at 250 centres — a conservative starting point refineable per loading.
`standard`	No		MMHW
`output_mode`	No		full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true contradicts the description which claims computation (creates BoQ, requires auth, returns error if not). The description itself is clear about behavior (paid tier, error handling), but the contradiction with annotations reduces trust. Per guidelines, a score of 1 is given due to contradiction.

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 front-loaded with critical access information and provides context, examples, and deliverables. It is relatively long but each sentence adds value. Some technical phrasing (e.g., 'cross-cutting standards-handler discrimination') may be unnecessary for most agents.

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 key aspects: paid tier, alternative, example call, default behavior, and deliverable options. It does not detail return values, but the output schema is available. It is sufficiently complete for a competent agent.

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 provides example parameters with ranges (e.g., length 1–100 m) and defaults tuned to UK domestic. However, only three of many nested parameters are exemplified, so compensation is partial. The description adds value but not comprehensive coverage.

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 uses specific verb 'compute' and resource 'strip foundation BoQ'. It distinguishes from sibling 'compute_cantilever_wall' as a free-tier alternative and mentions it completes the P1 launch set with 'pad_foundation'. The purpose is clear and differentiated.

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 the paid-tier requirement, provides a free alternative (compute_cantilever_wall), and gives an example call with parameter settings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other similar tools, though the mention of 'strip foundation' implies scope.

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?