EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Edit one-time service in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_edit_one_time_service

Read-onlyIdempotent

Edit one-time service 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_edit_one_time_service"
  }
}

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reconciles the potentially confusing 'edit' name with that read-only behavior by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns guidance. That is genuinely additive context beyond the annotations, covering what the tool does and does not change. It stops short of describing output format, length, or any prerequisites for the user's account state.

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 workflow is front-loaded in the first two sentences and is easy to act on. The third sentence is a lengthy research note about 404s on ezlawnbiller.com/api and QuickBooks being the only integration, which is verbose justification rather than actionable guidance, and 'EZ Lawn Biller' is repeated six times.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content type (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), and the follow-up mechanism. It could say more about what to do if the guidance doesn't match the user's screen, but nothing essential for invocation 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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is a 4. The description correctly implies all specifics (which service, which fields) come from the user conversation rather than a structured input.

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 ('Edit one-time service') and clarifies the non-obvious twist that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the edit. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like ez_lawn_biller_edit_billing_item or ez_lawn_biller_one_off_billing, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get screens/buttons/fields, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also implies when not to expect an API path by reporting that no public API exists. Lacks explicit exclusion language against sibling edit tools, which keeps it from 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?