EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Recurring Billing in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_recurring_billing

Read-onlyIdempotent

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_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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' clarifying that the tool is purely informational. It also discloses the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and notes the absence of a public API, explaining why browser automation is required. It does not describe response length or formatting.

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 purpose and the 'opens nothing by itself' caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence and a half. The closing sentence about the missing API is somewhat long but earns its place by justifying the browser-tool handoff.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back, that nothing is mutated, and which tool family performs the actual work. Minor gaps remain about scope (e.g., setting up versus editing or cancelling recurring billing) relative to the many sibling tools.

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 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless informational call.

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 resource (recurring billing in EZ Lawn Biller) and a clear output type: step-by-step guidance covering screens, buttons, and fields. It distinguishes itself from action-performing tools by saying it 'opens nothing by itself.' It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like ez_lawn_biller_recurring or ez_lawn_biller_edit_recurring_billing.

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 clear workflow: call this to get instructions, then execute via cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That is useful sequencing. But it never states when an agent should choose this versus the sibling recurring-billing tools, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?