Firecrawl MCP Server

Update Firecrawl monitor

firecrawl_monitor_update

Destructive

Update an existing monitor by ID to change its name, status, schedule, targets, goal, webhook, notifications, or retention so future scheduled checks use the revised settings.

Instructions

Patch an existing monitor by ID. The body can change its name, active/paused status, schedule, targets, goal, judging, webhook, notifications, or retention; these changes affect future scheduled checks.

Returns the updated monitor.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "firecrawl_monitor_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`body`	Yes

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

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the patch is by ID and edits only take effect on future scheduled checks, not on any in-flight run. However it does not say whether an omitted field is preserved or cleared, nor whether targets are replaced wholesale — material for a destructive patch.

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 mutation scope front-loaded and the effect on scheduled checks immediately after. The closing "Returns the updated monitor" is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and does no harm.

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 values need not be described, and the field enumeration covers the biggest gap in the opaque body. What remains missing is merge-vs-replace semantics and per-field shape, which matter for a destructive nested-object patch.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the body object is opaque (additionalProperties=false with no declared properties), so the description is the only documentation of what can be sent. It enumerates the mutable fields — name, active/paused status, schedule, targets, goal, judging, webhook, notifications, retention — which adds substantial meaning over the schema. It still omits value formats and sub-structure for fields like schedule and judging.

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: "Patch an existing monitor by ID." That distinguishes it cleanly from firecrawl_monitor_create, firecrawl_monitor_get and firecrawl_monitor_list. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the boundary explicitly, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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: "these changes affect future scheduled checks" hints that this does not trigger an immediate run (that would be firecrawl_monitor_run), but the description never states when to use this versus monitor_create/monitor_run/monitor_get. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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