EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Service Windows in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_service_windows

Read-onlyIdempotent

Service Windows 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_service_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it "opens nothing by itself" and returns screen/button/field level instructions rather than performing changes. It also explains why a browser path is required (no documented official API, with dated evidence of 404s on /api, /developers, /docs). The only gap is that it does not state the granularity or size of the returned steps.

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 behavior and the no-side-effect constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the API-absence note is short, dated, and evidentiary. Some phrasing is clunky ("in the user's own ... from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent"), but no sentence is wasted.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, which it does (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), plus the crucial fact that it performs no action itself. What is missing is any definition of what a "service window" is in EZ Lawn Biller, which an agent may need to judge applicability.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a no-argument call and does not invent parameters that would mislead the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a real verb beyond the name ("Returns how to do it in EZ Lawn Biller step by step (screens, buttons, fields)"), so the agent knows this is a guidance tool, not a mutator. However, "Service Windows" is never defined, and the title merely restates the tool name, so the actual subject matter remains ambiguous. The relationship to the many ez_lawn_biller_* action siblings (e.g., ez_lawn_biller_add_service_type) is left unstated.

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?

The description implies usage (call this first to learn the procedure, then act) and points at "cotlet_browser_* tools" as the execution path. There is no explicit when-not, and those cotlet_browser_* tools are not among the listed siblings, so the routing between this guide and the sibling ez_lawn_biller_* action tools is left to inference.

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?