civilquants

Compute SuDS Swale (CIRIA C753) BoQ

compute_swale

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_attenuation_tank. Vegetated, geotextile-reinforced or rip-rap-lined linear drainage swale per CIRIA C753. Trapezoidal prismatic channel with three lining strategies covering the UK design palette from low-velocity amenity grass channels (1V:3H, 1-3% gradient) to high-velocity rip-rap-lined stretches. Optional check-dams (stone or concrete) for steeper sections. Renders cleanly across all four standards using existing earthworks / geosynthetics / concrete handlers — no PC items, all contractor-full supply route. Example params: bed_width=0.5 m (0.2–3), left_side_slope_h_per_v=3 (1.5–6), right_side_slope_h_per_v=3 (1.5–6). Example call: {"params": {"bed_width": 0.5, "left_side_slope_h_per_v": 3, "right_side_slope_h_per_v": 3}, "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	Default
`params`	Yes
`standard`	No	MMHW
`output_mode`	No	full_json
`deliverables`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses tier restrictions (TIER_INSUFFICIENT error), watermarking for free tier, and that DXF/PDF require paid tier. readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with compute behavior. 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?

Well-structured and information-dense, with tier info first, then purpose, parameter details, example. Could be slightly more concise but every sentence adds value.

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 tool complexity (many parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), description covers usage, tier restrictions, defaults, deliverables, and example. Output schema handles return values, so no need to describe them.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema covers only 0% of parameters (no descriptions in schema for most properties). Description compensates by explaining parameter ranges (e.g., bed_width 0.2–3), slopes, lining strategies, check dams, and defaults. Example call adds clarity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes a SuDS swale BoQ per CIRIA C753, covering three lining types. It distinguishes from sibling tool compute_attenuation_tank as a free alternative, and 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?

Explicitly states 'Paid tier only' and provides the free alternative compute_attenuation_tank. Includes example params and call, explains omitted parameters use defaults, and describes deliverables. Guidance is clear and comprehensive.

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?