Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

monitors_list

Retrieve up to 100 website-change monitors for an account, ordered newest first, with URLs, cadence, status, next check, and error details.

Instructions

List website-change monitors. Lists the website-change monitors on your account, most recently created first, up to 100. Each monitor has its target_type (page or sitemap), URL, name, cadence in minutes, enabled flag, last checked and last changed times, next check time, failure count, last error, and notification and sitemap settings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the account scope, that results are sorted most-recently-created-first, capped at 100, and enumerates the returned fields including target_type values. It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit or pagination behavior, but the limit and ordering disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the field enumeration is dense but useful given the missing output schema. Minor redundancy between "List website-change monitors" and the following "Lists the website-change monitors on your account."

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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return fields and stating the cap and ordering. The only gap is whether results beyond 100 exist or how to page, which is left implicit.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are accepted, consistent with the empty schema.

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 and resource ("List website-change monitors") plus scope ("on your account"), which separates it from sibling reads like monitors_get and monitors_checks. The added ordering and cap make the scope 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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating all monitors, but the description never states when to prefer it over monitors_get or monitors_checks, nor any exclusions. No explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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