Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

monitors_get

Retrieve a website-change monitor by ID to inspect its URL, target type, check cadence, enabled status, last/next checks, errors, and notification/sitemap settings.

Instructions

Get a website-change monitor. Returns one of your website-change monitors by id. The monitor includes its target_type (page or sitemap), URL, name, check cadence in minutes, enabled flag, last and next check times, failure count and last error, plus notification and sitemap settings.

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

A3.7/5.0
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 compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (target_type, URL, cadence, enabled flag, check times, failure count, last error, notification/sitemap settings), effectively substituting for the absent output schema. It stops short of stating permissions or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 purpose sentence and id reference are front-loaded, and the field enumeration is dense but informative rather than padded. It is slightly long, but every clause describes a distinct returned attribute, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by listing the monitor's fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response. It could be more complete about error cases (nonexistent id) but is otherwise sufficient for a single-entity read.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single param is fully documented in the schema itself (including where the id comes from). The description only adds the phrase 'by `id`', which adds little beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get a website-change monitor') and clarifies scope as retrieving a single monitor 'by `id`', which implicitly distinguishes it from monitors_list. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the singular-by-id framing makes the target unambiguous.

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: you call it when you have a monitor id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer monitors_list or monitors_checks instead. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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