Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Firecrawl MCP Server

Firecrawl MCP Server

by firecrawl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Update Firecrawl monitor

firecrawl_monitor_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing monitor by ID to change its name, active status, schedule, targets, goal, judging, webhook, notifications, or retention for future checks; returns the updated monitor.

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.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe monitor record: configuration, schedule, targets, and current state.
errorNoError message or error object when the call did not succeed.
successNoWhether the API call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.36.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -{}New value: +true
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • 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 record.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The monitor record: configuration, schedule, targets, and current state."
+    },
+    "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"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the effect is scoped forward ("these changes affect future scheduled checks") and the call returns the updated monitor. It still does not say what a destructive patch can overwrite or remove, e.g. whether omitted fields are left intact or whether the targets array is replaced wholesale.

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 plus a one-line return note, with the core action front-loaded and the field enumeration kept compact. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so omitting return-value detail is appropriate, and the annotation set covers safety. Given the nested, wholly undocumented body object, the description is close to complete but leaves the partial-vs-replace question and sibling routing unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the body is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema alone tells an agent nothing. The description partially compensates by naming the categories of fields the body accepts, but gives no formats, no indication of which keys are required or partial-update semantics, and no explanation of the id beyond "by ID".

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?

"Patch an existing monitor by ID" gives a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the mutable surface (name, status, schedule, targets, goal, judging, webhook, notifications, retention). It is clearly distinguishable from monitor_create/monitor_delete/monitor_get, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 "patch an existing monitor" and by the note that changes affect future scheduled checks, which hints this is a configuration change rather than an immediate run. There is no explicit routing guidance such as "use firecrawl_monitor_run for an immediate check" or "call firecrawl_monitor_get first to read current settings."

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools