Delete a website-change monitor by ID from your Crawlora account. It removes the active monitor while preserving its past check history.
Delete a website-change monitor. Deletes one of the caller's own monitors. Free to call. Does not delete its past check history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Monitor id"New value: +"Monitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID"v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ownership constraint (only caller's own monitors), the cost ('Free to call'), and the side-effect scope ('Does not delete its past check history'). It stops short of stating permanence/reversibility or the error behavior when the ID is not owned, which are relevant for a destructive operation.
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?
Four short declarative sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, ownership scope, cost, history preservation), with the core purpose front-loaded. Zero waste.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership, cost, and the key non-obvious side effect (history retained). Only the permanence of the deletion and failure modes are left unstated, a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and the guidance to use the account monitor create/list response ID lives entirely in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a website-change monitor'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling monitors_create/list/get/update/checks tools. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.
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?
Clarifies ownership ('one of the caller's own monitors'), which bounds when it is applicable, but never names an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.