Firecrawl MCP Server

List Firecrawl monitor checks

firecrawl_monitor_checks

Read-only

List historical monitor checks with optional status filters and pagination limits. Retrieve one page of check summaries and metadata to review monitor activity.

Instructions

List historical checks for a monitor, optionally filtered by status and bounded by a result limit. Returns one page of check summaries and pagination metadata.

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>"
    },
    "name": "firecrawl_monitor_checks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	One page of check summaries.
`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 listing.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing that results are paginated ('one page of check summaries and pagination metadata') and that filtering is optional. It does not mention ordering of historical checks or what happens when offset exceeds the total, which would be the next useful layer.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler; every clause (filtering, limit, page size, pagination metadata) carries information an agent needs.

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 return values need not be described, and the description adequately covers selection, filtering, and pagination for a read-only listing tool. Gaps are minor: sort order of historical checks and the meaning of 'id' remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially does so: it explains the status filter and implies a result limit, plus hints at offset via 'pagination metadata'. It never explicitly ties 'id' to a monitor rather than a check, and neither limit nor offset is named or bounded in prose.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource ('List historical checks for a monitor') and adds the filtering scope, so an agent can identify a paginated historical listing distinct from monitor_get or monitor_check. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, but the scope difference is inferable.

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 rather than stated: 'historical checks for a monitor' suggests post-hoc inspection, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of firecrawl_monitor_check or firecrawl_monitor_get, and no preconditions (e.g. requiring a valid monitor id) are given.

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