Firecrawl MCP Server

Create Firecrawl monitor

firecrawl_monitor_create

Creates a recurring monitor that schedules scrapes, crawls, or searches, compares each check with its retained predecessor, and sends email or webhook notifications when changes occur.

Instructions

Create a recurring scrape, crawl, or search monitor that compares each check with its retained predecessor. The simple form accepts page/pages or queries plus a plain-language goal; the advanced body form controls targets, schedule, change-tracking formats, judging, retention, webhook, and notifications.

In the simple form, a goal is required. If queries contains one or more non-empty values and is supplied with page/pages, queries create the search target and page targets are ignored. A monitor schedules future network checks and can send configured email or webhook notifications. Returns the created monitor.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "firecrawl_monitor_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`goal`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`email`	No
`pages`	No
`queries`	No
`timezone`	No
`maxResults`	No
`webhookUrl`	No
`includeDiffs`	No
`scheduleText`	No
`searchWindow`	No
`excludeDomains`	No
`includeDomains`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The monitor record: configuration, schedule, targets, and current state.
`error`	No	Error message or error object when the call did not succeed.
`success`	No	Whether the API call succeeded.
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that a monitor schedules future network checks, compares each check with a retained predecessor, can send email or webhook notifications, and returns the created monitor. Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and destructive flags, so this adds useful operational context.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers form selection, precedence, side effects, and return value. It could be slightly tighter around the repeated simple-form wording, but there is no major waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained in detail, and the description does mention that it returns the created monitor. However, for a 15-parameter creation tool with a nested body object and zero schema descriptions, the input-side explanation is too sparse for an agent to confidently populate advanced body fields or most top-level parameters.

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 15 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains the goal requirement, the queries-over-pages precedence, and the broad purpose of body, but most parameters such as name, timezone, maxResults, includeDiffs, scheduleText, searchWindow, includeDomains, and excludeDomains remain semantically undefined.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a recurring scrape, crawl, or search monitor. It clearly distinguishes creation from later monitor operations such as list/get/update/delete/run, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when to use the simple form versus the advanced body form, notes that goal is required in the simple form, and gives a precedence rule when queries and page/pages are supplied together. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools.

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