Firecrawl MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run Firecrawl monitor now

firecrawl_monitor_run

Queues 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.

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.

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": "The check queued outside the monitor schedule.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The queued check."
+    },
+    "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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the initial bar is low. The description adds two valuable facts beyond the annotations: the call 'starts network work for the monitor's configured targets' (explaining why it is not read-only and why it is not idempotent) and that it 'returns the queued check', making the asynchronous queue semantics explicit. It does not mention credit cost, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tight sentences: the action statement is front-loaded and the network/return behavior follows. Every sentence adds distinct information, with no 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return values, and it correctly summarizes the key behavior (returns the queued check, triggers network work). For a mutation-style, open-world, non-idempotent tool, the one remaining gap is the lack of parameter clarification and any credit/cost note.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It implies the parameter identifies a monitor ('for a monitor'), but never states 'the monitor ID', leaving open whether the id refers to a monitor, a check, or a target. Since there is only one obvious parameter, the inference is easy, but the description forgoes valuable disambiguation.

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 and resource: 'Queue an immediate check for a monitor', and adds the scope qualifier 'outside its normal schedule', which distinguishes it from the scheduled-monitor siblings (firecrawl_monitor_checks / firecrawl_monitor_check). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Queue an immediate check ... outside its normal schedule' tells the agent clearly when to reach for this tool: when an out-of-band run is wanted rather than waiting for the schedule. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'do not use to read past results — use firecrawl_monitor_checks'), which keeps it at 4.

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