AutoLeap MCP Server and API by Cotlet

List repair orders in AutoLeap

autoleap_list_repair_orders

Read-onlyIdempotent

List repair orders in the user's own AutoLeap account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in AutoLeap step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AutoLeap Cloud Browser. AutoLeap's official API: AutoLeap has a REST Partner API, but it is gated: credentials go to approved integration partners, and AutoLeap describes it as not available for the Essentials, Pro and Elite plans (checked 28 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "autoleap_list_repair_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is pre-supplied. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is non-operative ('opens nothing by itself') and the return payload is a procedural walkthrough. The note on AutoLeap's gated Partner API (not available on Essentials/Pro/Elite, checked 28 Oct 2026) usefully forecloses an API shortcut the agent might otherwise attempt.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the key behavioral correction, and the browser-handoff instruction follows logically. The 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause and the parenthetical API-check date are slightly expendable, but the API sentence earns its place by preventing a wrong approach.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so explicitly: a step-by-step procedure listing screens, buttons and fields, with no side effects. Combined with the follow-up browser-tool path and the API availability caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. It correctly implies a parameterless call by never suggesting filters or account identifiers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (list repair orders in the user's AutoLeap account) and then immediately corrects the expectation set by the name: it returns step-by-step screens/buttons/fields rather than data, and 'opens nothing by itself'. That clarification is the most useful part, though the opening sentence reads as a data-listing claim before the correction lands.

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?

It gives clear workflow sequencing: call this first to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the AutoLeap Cloud Browser. It does not state exclusions or compare against cotlet_app_guide, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended role in the flow is unambiguous.

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

All AutoLeap MCP Server and API by Cotlet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?