preview_monitorCapture a nonpersistent sample to assess a page's identity, fields, evidence, and missing reasons before enabling a monitor.
Capture a nonpersistent sample and assess identity, fields, evidence, and missing reasons. Start with preset firecrawl-introduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| config | No | ||
| preset | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| revision | No | ||
| monitorId | No | ||
| intervalMs | No | ||
| ruleVersion | No | ||
| staleAfterMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful 'nonpersistent sample' cue (a dry-run that does not persist), which is real context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about permissions, side effects of `url`/`config`, or what the preview response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler; the start-with-preset instruction is front-loaded after the purpose. It is tight, though the first sentence is dense with undefined terms rather than being wastefully long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the two-sentence description leaves most of what an agent needs undocumented. The only actionable detail is the preset starting point; parameter formats and expected preview output are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% across 9 parameters including a nested `config` object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only echoes the single enum value for `preset` and never explains `url`, `config`, `revision`, `monitorId`, `intervalMs`, or `staleAfterMs`.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a verb ('Capture') and describes outputs ('identity, fields, evidence, and missing reasons') plus the 'nonpersistent' nature, but never names the resource — that it previews a monitor's behavior is only inferable from the tool name and title. 'Assess identity, fields, evidence, and missing reasons' is jargon that doesn't crisply distinguish it from siblings like run_monitor or get_monitor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Start with preset firecrawl-introduction' hints at an initial invocation path, but there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as run_monitor or create_monitor. The agent gets no explicit signal about when a preview is preferred over actually running or creating a monitor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.