Firecrawl MCP Server

Run Firecrawl monitor now

firecrawl_monitor_run

Queue an immediate check for a monitor outside its normal schedule, starting network work for its configured targets and returning the queued check.

Instructions

Queue an immediate check for a monitor outside its normal schedule. This starts network work for the monitor's configured targets and returns the queued check.

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_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The queued check.
`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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing two things annotations cannot: that real network work is launched against the monitor's configured targets, and that the call returns a *queued* check rather than a completed result (asynchronous semantics). It does not mention credit cost or repeat-call behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and the schedule-bypass qualifier front-loaded and the return value stated last. Nothing redundant with the title or annotations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is the meaning of the sole required parameter and any note on cost/rate implications of triggering real network work, which matters for a single-purpose trigger tool.

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?

The single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies that it is the monitor identifier — only an indirect hint via "the monitor's configured targets". With a non-trivial id (monitor vs. check vs. crawl IDs elsewhere in this server) this is a real gap the description should have closed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Queue an immediate check') and resource ('a monitor'), plus the scope qualifier 'outside its normal schedule', which cleanly separates it from firecrawl_monitor_checks (list past checks) and firecrawl_monitor_get. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

'Outside its normal schedule' implies the trigger condition for using this over waiting for the scheduled run, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. 'use firecrawl_monitor_checks to read results afterwards'). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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