Firecrawl MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Firecrawl monitor check

firecrawl_monitor_check

Read-only

Retrieve a page-monitor check with page-level results, status filters, and change details like text diffs or JSON field comparisons; paginate through results when more exist.

Instructions

Retrieve one monitor check and its page-level results, optionally filtered by page status. Pages report same, new, changed, removed, or error; configured goal judging can add a meaningful-change decision.

Markdown tracking returns a unified text diff, JSON tracking returns field paths with previous/current values and a current snapshot, and mixed tracking returns both. Returns one page of results plus a next URL when more pages exist.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`skip`	No
`limit`	No
`checkId`	Yes
`pageStatus`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The check and its page-level results: each page reports `same`, `new`, `changed`, `removed`, or `error`, with diffs and any goal judgment.
`next`	No	URL of the next page of results, when more exist.
`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 page results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2Oct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "One monitor check with its page-level diff results.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The check and its page-level results: each page reports `same`, `new`, `changed`, `removed`, or `error`, with diffs and any goal judgment."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message or error object when the call did not succeed."
+    },
+    "next": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "URL of the next page of results, when more exist."
+    },
+    "pagination": {
+      "description": "Pagination metadata for the page results."
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Whether the API call succeeded."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.1Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the credit here comes from added context: the enumeration of page statuses, the goal-judging 'meaningful-change' decision, format variation by tracking mode (text diff vs. field paths with snapshot), and pagination via a `next` URL. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations and the output schema alone convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, each doing distinct work: retrieval scope, result semantics, then output format and pagination. The core action is front-loaded and there is no padding.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description is not obliged to explain return values, yet it does so well. The gap is the required identifier pair (id and checkId) plus skip/limit pagination controls, which are undefined in both the schema and the description — an agent could easily mis-populate them.

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 five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the enum values for `pageStatus` and hints at filtering semantics, but says nothing about `id` vs. `checkId` (the two required identifiers) or about `skip`/`limit`, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 combination: 'Retrieve one monitor check and its page-level results'. The singular 'one monitor check' distinguishes it from the sibling firecrawl_monitor_checks listing tool, though that contrast is implied rather than named.

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 by the optional page-status filter and pagination language, giving an agent enough to know this is the single-check detail read. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus firecrawl_monitor_checks or firecrawl_monitor_get, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an existing check.

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