civilquants

Save project

save_project

Persist a CivilQuants project with its assembly list. Each call creates a new project — it never overwrites an existing one. To revise a saved project's parameters: call get_project to recover its assemblies, amend the values, then call save_project again with the amended list (a revision-suffixed name like 'Pump Station R02' keeps the history browsable) and run recompute_project on the new project_id — recompute_project takes no parameter overrides. To measure a different assembly type instead, route via resolve_assembly_from_description. Re-find saved work in a later conversation with list_projects or get_project by exact name. Paid tier only — anonymous callers receive a TIER_INSUFFICIENT envelope pointing at https://civilquants.com/pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Body for ``POST /api/v1/mcp/project/save``.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive write. Description adds behavioral context: never overwrites, uses revision naming, and mentions paid-tier restriction. No 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?

Single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose. Every sentence provides value, though could be more structured for readability. No wasted words.

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, sibling context, and existing output schema, the description covers creation, revision workflow, alternative tools, and re-finding. Also addresses payment restrictions.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining how to use the name parameter for revision and mentioning assemblies array, but does not detail each field.

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 the tool persists a project with its assembly list and explicitly notes each call creates a new project, never overwriting. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project or recompute_project.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: for revision, call get_project first, amend, then save with a revision-suffixed name; for a different assembly type, use resolve_assembly_from_description. Also notes paid tier requirement.

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?