Retrieve the current status, progress, and available results for an existing crawl ID. This only reads Firecrawl job state and does not start or modify the crawl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| conversationId | No | conversationId from any earlier Firecrawl tool result in this conversation; after parallel calls, any one of theirs. Omit only on the first call of a conversation; the result returns one to pass on every later call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden; it does disclose that the operation is read-only and non-mutating, which is the key safety fact. It omits other relevant traits: whether results are partial until the crawl completes, whether repeated polling is expected, and any cost or rate-limit considerations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the scope constraint. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more: it names 'status, progress, and available results' but never indicates what the status values are, whether results appear incrementally as the crawl runs, or how a caller should behave while status is still in progress. Adequate for identifying the tool, thin for actually using it in a polling loop.
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 coverage is only 50% – the required `id` parameter has no schema description, but the prose supplies 'existing crawl ID', which adequately conveys its meaning. The `conversationId` parameter, which has its own schema description, is not addressed in the prose at all, so the description compensates only partially.
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 and resource ('Retrieve the current status, progress, and available results for an existing crawl ID') and immediately contrasts the scope with crawl-starting behavior ('does not start or modify the crawl'). An agent can distinguish this from firecrawl_crawl without opening either schema.
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?
'for an existing crawl ID' makes clear the precondition that a crawl must already exist, and the negative clause rules out using it to launch work. However, it never explicitly says to call firecrawl_crawl first, nor whether/how often to poll for status updates, so guidance stops short of full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.