EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Refund reporting in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_refund_reporting

Read-onlyIdempotent

Refund reporting 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_refund_reporting"
  }
}

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, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it clarifies the tool returns instructions rather than acting, and documents that no public EZ Lawn Biller API exists (404s on /api, /developers, /docs; QuickBooks only), which justifies routing through browser tools. It omits any sense of how long or detailed the returned guidance is.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the next-step instruction, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The trailing API-availability sentence is longer than necessary and pins a specific date, but it does earn its place by explaining why the browser route is required.

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, no-output-schema guidance tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned, that no action occurs, and how to proceed afterward. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on which sibling tool performs the refund versus this one, leaving the choice to inference.

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 confirms an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 clearly states the tool returns step-by-step procedural guidance for refund reporting inside EZ Lawn Biller ('screens, buttons, fields') rather than performing the action, and explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself'. That distinguishes it from an action tool, though it never names the sibling that actually issues the refund, so an agent must infer that difference from behavior rather than from an explicit comparison.

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?

Usage is spelled out as a sequence: call this first to learn the procedure, then carry it out with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's EZ Lawn Biller Cloud Browser. This gives clear operational context, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative within the ez_lawn_biller_* family for the executable refund path.

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?