EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Submit field problem report in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_submit_field_problem_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Submit field problem report 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_submit_field_problem_report"
  }
}

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this in plain language ('opens nothing by itself'), heading off the expectation that 'submit' mutates anything. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the no-public-API rationale behind the browser-based approach. It does not cover prerequisites such as an active browser session or connected account, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the mechanic and the next step, so an agent can decide from the opening lines. The API-research sentence (404s on /api, /developers, /docs) is relevant context for why browser tools are needed but is the least essential part of the definition.

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 is returned, that nothing is executed, and how to carry out the action afterward. The remaining gap is preconditions (browser session or account connection requirements), which the agent would need to call successfully.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema-conveyed baseline applies. The description adds nothing here, but nothing is missing either.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Submit field problem report in the user's own EZ Lawn Biller account') and immediately clarifies the actual mechanic: it 'Returns how to do it in EZ Lawn Biller step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself'. That resolves the ambiguity between 'submit' and 'returns instructions'. It does not name a sibling (e.g. ez_lawn_biller_problem_reports) to differentiate scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: call this to get the step-by-step procedure, then perform it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the EZ Lawn Biller Cloud Browser. That is clear when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it or which EZ Lawn Biller data tool would show existing reports instead.

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?