EZ Lawn Biller by Cotlet

Undo in EZ Lawn Biller

ez_lawn_biller_undo

Read-onlyIdempotent

Undo 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_undo"
  }
}

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with an explicit "opens nothing by itself" — resolving whether the tool mutates the account. It also documents an environment constraint (no public EZ Lawn Biller API exists, per 404s on /api, /developers, /docs and QuickBooks-only FAQ), which explains why browser tools are the execution path. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned instructions 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the key non-obvious fact (it returns instructions, it does not act), followed by the follow-up workflow and the API-availability caveat. The API paragraph is the longest segment and reads as evidentiary boilerplate, but it is short enough to justify its place by explaining the browser-tool dependency.

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 produces (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), what it does not do, and what to do next. Only the granularity of the returned steps and any ambiguity against the undo_cancellation sibling are left unaddressed.

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 and there is no parameter meaning the description needs to carry. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Undo in the user's own EZ Lawn Biller account") and immediately clarifies the output mode: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ez_lawn_biller_undo_cancellation, leaving ambiguity about which undo entry point to choose.

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 gives a clear two-step workflow: call this tool to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That is real usage guidance. What is missing is any exclusion or selection rule versus the sibling undo tool (ez_lawn_biller_undo_cancellation), so an agent must still guess which of the two to call.

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?