EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Customer Settings in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_customer_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Customer 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_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 readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating the tool mutates nothing and only returns procedural text. The note that no public EZ Lawn Biller API exists explains why the browser tools are the only execution path. It does not describe the shape of the returned instructions (e.g. length, formatting) beyond 'step by step'.

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?

The core behavior and the handoff to browser tools are front-loaded in the first two clauses. The trailing API-investigation note is long and reads like provenance metadata, but it does earn its place by justifying the browser-tool workflow.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what is not done (nothing is opened), and how to act on the result. Only a description of the return format's structure is missing.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so the baseline applies. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and it correctly implies the scope is fixed to Customer Settings.

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 resource (Customer Settings) and states exactly what comes back: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields. It is clear this is a guidance/knowledge tool rather than an action tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling settings tools (delivery, company, email, portal), relying instead on the noun 'Customer Settings' to carry that distinction.

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 a concrete usage path: this tool returns instructions and 'opens nothing by itself', and the actual work is then done with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. That is a clear when-to-use and what-to-use-next statement. It stops short of naming when a sibling settings tool would be the correct choice instead.

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?