EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

CC emails in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_cc_emails

Read-onlyIdempotent

CC emails in the user's own EZ Lawn Biller account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in EZ Lawn Biller step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's EZ Lawn Biller Cloud Browser. EZ Lawn Biller's official API: No publicly documented EZ Lawn Biller API was found on 11 Nov 2026: ezlawnbiller.com/api, /developers and /docs returned 404, and its FAQ and manual name QuickBooks as the only integration.

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": "ez_lawn_biller_cc_emails"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description is consistent with that by stating it 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return is procedural guidance, and the actual change must happen through browser tools in the user's own account. The API note explains why no direct integration exists, though it is heavier on provenance than on any residual risk.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core sentence is front-loaded and does the real work: returns steps, opens nothing, then use cotlet_browser_* tools. The closing API-research sentence is long and citation-like (specific dates and 404 paths) and dilutes the payload, even if the underlying fact is useful.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is missing: what the call returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and the handoff to browser tools. The API caveat rounds out the picture. A short note on what the steps look like if the feature is unavailable would close the remaining gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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?

States a specific goal (CC emails in the user's EZ Lawn Biller account) and a specific deliverable (step-by-step instructions covering screens, buttons, fields). It also makes clear it is a how-to tool rather than an action tool, which separates it from the mutation siblings. It does not name a comparable sibling to distinguish against.

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?

Clear two-stage usage: call this to get the steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's own Cloud Browser. It does not list when NOT to use it or name any ez_lawn_biller_* alternative that might already accomplish the same outcome.

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

All EZ Lawn Biller 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?