Firecrawl MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Firecrawl monitor

firecrawl_monitor_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes a monitor by ID and stops its future schedule, returning deletion status. Use it to remove unwanted monitors when their scheduled checks are no longer needed.

Instructions

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

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.

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": "Deletion status for the monitor.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Deletion details, when the API returns any."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message or error object when the call did not succeed."
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Whether the API call succeeded."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.1Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds useful specifics: deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and stops future scheduling. It also notes that deletion status is returned, though the output schema already covers return values.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the permanent deletion action, and every clause adds relevant information. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: permanence, schedule stopping, and irreversibility. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain where to obtain the monitor ID, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

There is one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'by ID', which adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the parameter name and schema type.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a Firecrawl monitor by ID. It also clarifies the effect of stopping the future schedule, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous against sibling monitor tools like get, list, run, and update.

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 description implies usage by saying this permanently deletes and stops scheduling, but it does not explicitly state when to choose deletion versus alternatives such as update or stopping a schedule. The irreversible nature is clear, but no alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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