Firecrawl MCP Server

Get Firecrawl monitor check

firecrawl_monitor_check

Read-only

Retrieve a monitor check's page-level results, optionally filtered by page status, to identify changed content through text diffs or JSON field comparisons with pagination.

Instructions

Retrieve one monitor check and its page-level results, optionally filtered by page status. Pages report same, new, changed, removed, or error; configured goal judging can add a meaningful-change decision.

Markdown tracking returns a unified text diff, JSON tracking returns field paths with previous/current values and a current snapshot, and mixed tracking returns both. Returns one page of results plus a next URL when more pages exist.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "checkId": "<checkId>"
    },
    "name": "firecrawl_monitor_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`skip`	No
`limit`	No
`checkId`	Yes
`pageStatus`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The check and its page-level results: each page reports `same`, `new`, `changed`, `removed`, or `error`, with diffs and any goal judgment.
`next`	No	URL of the next page of results, when more exist.
`error`	No	Error message or error object when the call did not succeed.
`success`	No	Whether the API call succeeded.
`pagination`	No	Pagination metadata for the page results.
`agent_hints`	No	Optional response guidance from the Firecrawl API.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.28.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the possible page statuses, notes that goal judging can add a meaningful-change decision, and explains how output shape varies by tracking mode (unified diff, field paths with previous/current plus snapshot, or both).

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 compact paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by output-shape detail; nearly every clause carries information. It is dense but not padded, though the output-format sentence overlaps with what the output schema already conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the two required identifiers and the pagination parameters, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains id vs. checkId, or what skip and limit do beyond the implicit remark that results are paginated with a next URL. Only pageStatus gets meaning added, via the enumeration of status values (which already exists as the schema enum).

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: retrieve one monitor check plus its page-level results, with optional page-status filtering. The singular 'one monitor check' implicitly separates it from the plural sibling firecrawl_monitor_checks, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the resource ('one monitor check' vs. a list or a monitor definition), with no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite such as needing a checkId produced by a run. An agent can guess the right context but is not told.

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