MCP For Claude Marketplace
Engineering Compliance Prover

Engineering Compliance Prover MCP Connector for Claude

A+

Forces AI to validate structural designs against US codes (ASCE, ACI, NEC). Demands real capacity-demand ratios, traced load paths, specific material tolerances, and FMEA instead of vague appeals to 'industry standards'.

1 tools Official Updated Jun 28, 2026 Official Vinkius Partner
More Details Connect to Claude

AI agents propose engineering designs that look plausible but fail fundamentally on safety factors, load paths, and code compliance. They rely on vague appeals to 'industry standards' rather than calculating specific capacity-demand ratios or tracing loads through a system. In engineering, 'looks sturdy' is not a metric.

The Problem It Solves

AI-generated engineering reasoning fails for five specific reasons:

  • Code blindness — Vague references to "best practices" without citing specific normative codes (e.g., ASCE 7-22).
  • Ignored failure modes — Prescribing a solution without analyzing HOW it could fail (yielding, buckling, fatigue) and identifying the controlling condition.
  • Ungrounded safety factors — Failing to calculate explicit capacity-demand ratios or factors of safety.
  • Broken load paths — Missing load assumptions (dead, live, seismic) or failure to trace forces through the structure.
  • Omitted tolerances — Ignoring material grades, specifications, and environmental constraints. 'Steel' is not a spec.

How It Works

Engineering Compliance Prover uses 5 Decision Pivots grounded in US engineering practice:

  1. codeComplianceValidated — Is the design explicitly validated against a stated, specific normative code?
  2. failureModesAnalyzed — Are the critical failure modes explicitly analyzed, identifying which one controls?
  3. safetyFactorsChecked — Are capacity-demand ratios or factors of safety explicitly calculated and confirmed?
  4. loadPathsTraced — Are all load assumptions explicitly stated and their path traced?
  5. tolerancesSpecified — Are specific material grades, tolerances, and environmental conditions addressed?
engineeringstructuralcompliancesafetyfmeastructured-reasoning

1 tools expose this connector's capabilities to your AI agent.

validate_engineering_compliance

Engineering is not opinion — it is code compliance, failure analysis, and proven safety margins. Lives depend on this rigor. You must: (1) define PROJECT SCOPE — system boundaries, design intent, applicable loading conditions, (2) cite the APPLICABLE CODE — exact standard with version, year, and section. "AISC 360-16, Section F2 — Flexural Members" is a code reference. "Industry standards" is rejected. Name the code or do not design, (3) detail LOAD ASSUMPTIONS — dead, live, wind, seismic, thermal, special loads. Quantified values (50 psf, 115 mph, Category C exposure). Load combinations per ASCE 7-22 Section 2.3 (LRFD or ASD), (4) analyze FAILURE MODES — FMEA methodology. Which modes are possible? Flexural yielding, lateral-torsional buckling, web crippling, connection shear, voltage drop, thermal runaway, fatigue. Which mode CONTROLS the design? How is the controlling mode mitigated?, (5) verify SAFETY FACTORS — calculate capacity-demand ratios, φRn ≥ Ru (LRFD) or Rn/Ω ≥ Ra (ASD). Show actual numbers compared to code minimums, (6) specify MATERIALS — exact grades (ASTM A992, f'c = 4000 psi), exposure classes, environmental constraints, corrosion protection, fire ratings, (7) propose DESIGN CONCLUSION — specific dimensions, sizes, ratings, parameters. Not "adequate" — the exact specification. If rejected, your engineering analysis has a structural deficiency that must be resolved. Structured reflection tool for US engineering compliance — forces rigorous code-based analysis grounded in ASCE, ACI, AISC, NEC, and ASME standards before any design conclusion. Catches Code Compliance Blindness (referencing "industry standards" or "best practices" instead of citing a specific code section — "AISC 360-16 Section F2" is a code reference. "Industry standards for steel design" is hand-waving. Codes exist because people died), Failure Mode Ignorance (designing without analyzing how the system fails — which failure mode CONTROLS the design? Flexural yielding, lateral-torsional buckling, connection shear, voltage drop, thermal runaway? If you have not identified the controlling failure mode, you have not designed — you have guessed), Safety Factor Ungrounded ("adequate safety factor" without showing the calculation — LRFD φ factors, ASD Ω factors, capacity-demand ratios with actual numbers. The code specifies minimums. Show the math proving you exceed them), Load Path Broken (loads assumed without tracing their path through the structure — gravity, live, wind, seismic, thermal. Load combinations per ASCE 7-22 Section 2.3. A load that reaches the foundation without a traceable path is a load that finds its own path — usually through a failure), and Tolerance Omitted ("steel" without specifying ASTM A992 Fy=50 ksi, "concrete" without specifying 4000 psi f'c with exposure class — the material grade IS the design). Call once per engineering design or compliance assessment

See how to talk to your AI agent using Engineering Compliance Prover.

We need to build a concrete retaining wall 10ft high. Ensure it's built to industry standards and is very safe against tipping over. Provide the design.

Verdict: CODE_COMPLIANCE_BLIND. You cite 'industry standards' and claim it will be 'very safe'. That is not an engineering specification. Name the specific code (e.g., ACI 318, ASCE 7), quantify the soil loads, calculate the factor of safety against overturning, and specify the concrete grade.

Design a W-shape steel beam spanning 20ft to support a 50 psf live load and 20 psf dead load. Validate the reasoning using the engineering compliance prover, citing AISC 360-16, checking lateral-torsional buckling, specifying ASTM A992 steel, and providing the max capacity ratio.

Verdict: REASONING_PROVEN. Code compliance validated (AISC 360-16), failure modes analyzed (lateral-torsional buckling checked), load paths traced (dead and live loads quantified), safety factors checked (max capacity ratio provided), and tolerances specified (ASTM A992).

Specify a 10 AWG copper wire for a 30A circuit at 100ft. Validate the code compliance against NEC, but do not analyze voltage drop or thermal limits.

Verdict: FAILURE_MODE_IGNORED. You validated against NEC, but intentionally ignored voltage drop and thermal runaway analysis. Name the failure mode and demonstrate that the design mitigates it.

No. This is a strictly stateless reasoning gatekeeper. It does not perform mathematical structural analysis or run simulations. It validates the structural logic of the AI's engineering reasoning based on the inputs provided, ensuring no assumptions are skipped.

Related Connectors

NEW
HS

Heart Score Calculator MCP

3 tools Official

Determine acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk using five key clinical metrics.

A+ View details →
NEW
HR

Hypertrophy Rep Range Calculator MCP

4 tools Official

Track and optimize muscle hypertrophy by monitoring training volume, RIR targets, and effective stimulus.

A+ View details →
NEW
PR

PE Ratio Analyzer MCP

4 tools Official

Analyze stock valuation using P/E, PEG, and sector-specific benchmarks.

A+ View details →
NEW
YC

Yield Curve Analyzer MCP

3 tools Official

Analyze interest rate curves, identify spreads, and detect recession signals.

A+ View details →