Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

monitors_delete

Delete a website-change monitor by its ID to stop future checks. The monitor must belong to the calling account; past check history is not removed.

Instructions

Delete a website-change monitor. Deletes one website-change monitor by its id, which must belong to the calling account. Returns deleted: true on success. The monitor's past check history is not removed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.9
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Monitor id"New value: +"Monitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID"
  2. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses the success response ('deleted: true') and the important non-cascade behavior (past check history is not removed). It stops short of warning that the deletion is irreversible or whether it is idempotent/errors on a missing id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by ownership constraint, success result, and retention caveat. Zero wasted text.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, ownership requirement, return value, and side-effect boundary adequately. It lacks an explicit irreversibility/permission warning, which would round it out.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the id parameter is already documented. The description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema — the id 'must belong to the calling account' — which tells the agent ownership is enforced, plus the success return shape.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('website-change monitor') and scopes it to a single monitor by id. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling monitors_create, monitors_get, monitors_list, monitors_update, and monitors_checks tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the account-ownership constraint, but the description never states when to prefer this over monitors_update (modify) or what happens when the id is unknown/invalid. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools