Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

monitors_update

Update a website-change monitor's settings, including cadence, enabled state, target type, sitemap rules, and webhook alerts. Changing target type or sitemap resets the diff baseline for fresh checks.

Instructions

Update a website-change monitor. Partially updates one of the caller's own monitors. Free to call. Changing target_type or sitemap resets the stored diff baseline (fingerprint, snapshot, or URL set), so the next check establishes a fresh baseline instead of comparing against a now-meaningless prior state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID
requestYesFields to update

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / request / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "cadence_minutes": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "enabled": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "notification": {
+    "properties": {
+      "events": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "webhook_secret": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "webhook_url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "sitemap": {
+    "properties": {
+      "exclude_patterns": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "include_patterns": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "max_urls": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "target_type": {
+    "enum": [
+      "page",
+      "sitemap"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
  3. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does 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 cost ('Free to call'), ownership scoping, and a concrete destructive-ish side effect — that changing `target_type` or `sitemap` resets the stored diff baseline. What remains undisclosed is the success/response shape and any auth requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then the side-effect rule. Each sentence earns its place; the final sentence is long but packs the highest-value behavioral detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, cost, and the key state-reset behavior. It does not address error/validation behavior or confirm what the caller receives, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description exceeds it by calling out two specific request fields (`target_type`, `sitemap`) and explaining their semantic consequence on the stored baseline. The other fields (name, enabled, cadence_minutes, notification) get no description-level elaboration.

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+resource ('Update a website-change monitor') and adds scope precision ('Partially updates one of the caller's own monitors'). The operation is unambiguous and distinct from the create/list/get/delete/checks siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 bar for differentiation.

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 'partially updates one of the caller's own monitors' (a subset of fields may be sent, only your own monitors), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs monitors_create, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is present but inferred rather than stated.

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