EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Customer delivery settings in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_customer_delivery_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Customer delivery settings 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_customer_delivery_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying it opens nothing by itself and only returns instructions — the exact behavior an agent needs to know to avoid expecting a side effect. It also discloses the key external constraint: no public API exists (endpoints 404, QuickBooks is the only named integration), which explains why the browser tools are the follow-up. It does not describe response length or format beyond 'screens, buttons, fields'.

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 the resource and the crucial 'opens nothing by itself' constraint, followed by the follow-up workflow and the API finding. The 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' phrase and the dated API note add bulk, but the API note earns its place by explaining the browser-tool dependency.

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?

For a no-parameter instruction-lookup tool with a full annotation set, this covers what it returns, what it does not do, and what the agent should do next. The remaining minor gap is that it does not say what happens if the settings screen cannot be found or what the returned text looks like structurally.

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 schema has nothing to explain and a baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly presents it as a parameterless knowledge lookup.

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 verb and resource: it returns step-by-step instructions for locating customer delivery settings, explicitly noting the tool 'opens nothing by itself'. That distinguishes it from an action tool, though the name/title could still be confused with the sibling delivery-tracking or customer-settings tools, and the description never names an alternative.

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?

Gives a clear two-step workflow: call this first, then carry out the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It does not state when another EZ Lawn Biller settings tool would be the better choice, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?