EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Edit recurring billing in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_edit_recurring_billing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Edit recurring billing 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_recurring_billing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description is consistent: 'opens nothing by itself.' It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what is actually returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and which complementary tool family performs the real mutation. The long API-availability note also explains why browser automation is required, though the dated research citation is more provenance than behavior.

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 key constraint, that this tool returns instructions and opens nothing, is stated up front, followed by the follow-up path. The opening clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the API-provenance sentence is long relative to its value, but neither obscures the core instruction and the overall structure is clear.

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 it returns and how to act on it. An agent knows what to expect and how to proceed. Only the relationship to near-identical sibling edit tools is left implicit.

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?

There are zero input parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Edit recurring billing') and then clarifies the actual deliverable: step-by-step guidance detailing 'screens, buttons, fields' rather than an automated action. That resolves the mismatch between the 'edit' name and a read-only tool. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as ez_lawn_biller_edit_recurring_item or ez_lawn_biller_recurring_billing, which leaves some ambiguity about which entry point to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a usable sequence: call this to get the how-to, then act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser, and it explicitly says the tool 'opens nothing by itself,' so an agent won't wait for side effects. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling edit_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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?