civilquants

Get the customer-side document pipeline

get_document_pipeline

Read-only

Obtain the CivilQuants customer-side document pipeline — the toolkit the document-heavy skills (tender review, geotechnical / geo-environmental interpretation) use to chunk a tender pack and render a Word pack on the user's machine. Returns the self-unpacking chunking package, the pipeline discipline, and the python-docx render helpers. Universal (free + paid). NOTE: running the pipeline over real documents requires a code-execution client (Claude Code / Codex / VS Code) — a chat connector can read the toolkit but cannot execute it. The full kit is large (~60 KB); pass component='chunking'|'discipline'|'render' for one part (~20 KB each), or omit it for the whole kit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`component`	No	Which part to fetch; omit for the whole kit.	all

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds further behavioral context: explains that a chat connector can read but not execute, and provides details on component sizes and self-unpacking nature.

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?

Two main sentences plus a note. Information is front-loaded with purpose, then components, then usage constraint. Efficient but could slightly trim the list of skill types in the first sentence.

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 only one optional parameter and presence of output schema, the description covers the tool comprehensively. Mentions return values (chunking package, discipline, render helpers) and size details. No missing critical context.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the component enum values with size estimates and clarifying that omitting gets the whole kit.

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 obtains the CivilQuants customer-side document pipeline, used by document-heavy skills. It distinguishes itself from computational sibling tools by explicitly listing its purpose and components.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance including that running the pipeline requires a code-execution client, and a chat connector can only read but not execute. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but given sibling tools are compute-focused, the context is clear.

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?