EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Transfer stock in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_transfer_stock

Read-onlyIdempotent

Transfer stock 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_transfer_stock"
  }
}

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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns guidance, which pre-empts confusion from the mutating-sounding name. It also discloses that no public API exists (404s on /api, /developers, /docs; QuickBooks-only integration), explaining why browser automation is required. It does not describe the shape or granularity of the returned steps beyond 'screens, buttons, fields'.

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 and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing API-availability note is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by justifying the browser-based workflow.

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 (step-by-step instructions), what it does not do (no actions taken), and how to complete the task. Only the structure of the returned guidance is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 (stock in the user's own EZ Lawn Biller account) and specifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the transfer. The opening verb 'Transfer stock' momentarily reads like a mutation, but the clarifying clause 'opens nothing by itself' resolves it. It does not distinguish itself by name from siblings like ez_lawn_biller_add_stock or ez_lawn_biller_stock.

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 a clear usage path: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields walkthrough, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That is explicit routing to an alternative. It stops short of stating when an agent should skip this and use a direct stock sibling 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?