Firecrawl MCP Server

Delete Firecrawl monitor

firecrawl_monitor_delete

Destructive

Permanently delete a monitor by ID and stop its future schedule; this action cannot be undone and returns deletion status.

Instructions

Permanently delete a monitor by ID and stop its future schedule. This operation cannot be undone and returns deletion status.

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_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Deletion details, when the API returns any.
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds genuine context by stating irreversibility, that the schedule stops, and that deletion status is returned. It does not cover authorization requirements or whether the monitor's historical checks are also removed.

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 tight sentences with the destructive nature and the effect front-loaded, and nothing that reads as filler. Minor redundancy between 'Permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' keeps it from being maximally efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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 needn't explain return values, and it still notes the deletion status. For a one-parameter destructive tool, the essential facts (what is destroyed, that scheduling stops, irreversibility) are all present.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter has no schema description, so the description is the only source of meaning. It says 'by ID' but does not say where that ID comes from (e.g., firecrawl_monitor_list) or its format, leaving the parameter only minimally explained.

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 ('Permanently delete a monitor by ID') plus the side effect ('stop its future schedule'). This is unambiguously distinguishable from the sibling monitor_update, monitor_get, and monitor_list tools without opening any schema.

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?

The word 'Permanently' and 'cannot be undone' imply caution, but the description never says when to choose this over firecrawl_monitor_update (e.g., to pause or disable a schedule without deleting). Usage is implied rather than stated, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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