Skip to main content
Glama

Proven Plaza Calculators & Open Data

Retaining Wall Block Calculator (Blocks, Caps, Base Gravel & Drainage Rock)

calc_retaining_wall
Read-only

How many retaining wall blocks you need for a straight wall or a circle (fire pit, tree ring), including the buried course, cap units, base gravel for the leveling pad and drainage rock behind the wall. Block sizes are editable because every product line differs. Formula: Buried depth = max(exposed height ÷ bury ratio, minimum). Courses = ⌈(exposed height + buried depth − cap height) ÷ block height⌉. Blocks per course = ⌈run ÷ block face length⌉, where run = wall length, or π × outside diameter for a circle. Wall blocks = ⌈blocks per course × courses × (1 + waste%)⌉; caps = ⌈run ÷ cap length × (1 + waste%)⌉. Base gravel cu yd = run(ft) × trench width(in) × base depth(in) ÷ 144 ÷ 27; drainage rock cu yd = run(ft) × zone depth(in) × stacked block height(in) ÷ 144 ÷ 27 (straight walls only).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shapeNoWall shape; default straight
waste_pctNoBlock waste/cut allowance (%); default 5
min_bury_inNoMinimum buried depth (from your block maker) (in); default 6
base_depth_inNoCompacted base depth (in); default 6
bury_ratio_inNoBury 1 in of block for every __ in of exposed height (from your block maker) (in); default 8
cap_height_inNoCap height (0 = no caps) (in); default 0
cap_length_inNoCap face length (in); default 12
drain_zone_inNoDrainage rock zone behind the block (in); default 12
block_height_inNoBlock height (from the block label) (in); default 4
block_length_inNoBlock face length (from the block label) (in); default 12
trench_width_inNoBase trench width (in); default 24
exposed_height_inNoExposed wall height above grade (including cap) (in); default 24
length_or_diameter_ftNoWall length (straight) or outside diameter (circle) (ft); default 20

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: block sizes are editable because product lines differ, drainage rock is straight-wall-only, and the exact formulas disclose how each figure is derived so results can be sanity-checked.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Purpose and output scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by defaults and formulas. For a formula-driven calculator the equations earn their place, and there is no filler.

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?

With 13 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description carries real weight. It exposes the formulas so an agent can infer the returned quantities, though it never explicitly names the return fields or output format for a fully zero-argument-defaultable tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description maps parameters to roles in the formulas (bury ratio, cap height, trench width, drain zone) and explains the straight-vs-circle run substitution, adding interpretation the schema alone does not provide.

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?

States a specific computation (retaining wall block count) and enumerates every output component: buried course, cap units, base gravel, drainage rock. An agent can distinguish it from calc_concrete_block, calc_paver, and calc_brick from the description alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clarifies the two supported shapes (straight wall or a circle for fire pits/tree rings) and notes drainage rock applies to straight walls only, which implies usage. However, it never states when to choose this over sibling calculators like calc_paver or calc_concrete_block, and offers no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources