List checks for a monitor by monitor ID, with optional status filter and limit/offset for paging.
List checks for a monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum checks to return. The server applies 25 when this is absent. | |
| offset | No | Number of checks to skip. The server applies 0 when this is absent. | |
| status | No | Filter checks by status. | |
| monitorId | Yes | The monitor ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond them: no note on ordering, pagination behavior, or what a check record contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with paging and status filters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool whose schema fully documents its four parameters and whose annotations cover safety, this is roughly adequate. It omits return-shape or ordering context, but with no output schema and a simple contract, that gap is modest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents limit (default 25), offset (default 0), status enum values, and monitorId. The one-line description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (checks) scoped to a monitor, which is enough to distinguish it from firecrawl_monitor_create. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for monitor check history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.