Adds powerful web scraping and search to Cursor, Claude and any other LLM clients.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct input and purpose: firecrawl_parse handles local files, firecrawl_scrape handles single URLs, and firecrawl_search handles query-based discovery. No overlap or confusion likely.
All tools follow the consistent pattern `firecrawl_<verb>` (parse, scrape, search). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but covers the core scraping/searching/parsing operations. It feels slightly thin for a service like Firecrawl, but each tool earns its place.
The set covers single-page scraping, parsing, and search, but notably misses `firecrawl_crawl` and `firecrawl_map` which are explicitly referenced in the tool descriptions. These are significant gaps for the Firecrawl domain.
firecrawl_parseAParse one supported document into markdown, HTML, links, summary, targeted answers, or JSON matching a schema. Supported inputs include common HTML, PDF, Word, RTF, OpenDocument, and spreadsheet files; PDF parsing can be bounded with pdfOptions.maxPages.
Local MCP reads filePath from the server filesystem. Hosted MCP uses two calls: first provide filePath to receive upload instructions, upload locally, then call again with the returned uploadRef; do not send both fields together. Remote web URLs belong in firecrawl_scrape.
Set redactPII to request redaction of personally identifiable information in the returned content. zeroDataRetention requires an eligible authenticated account; omit it for anonymous keyless use. Returns upload instructions for hosted phase one or parsed document content for the final call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proxy | No | ||
| maxAge | No | ||
| formats | No | ||
| parsers | No | ||
| filePath | No | ||
| redactPII | No | ||
| uploadRef | No | ||
| pdfOptions | No | ||
| contentType | No | ||
| excludeTags | No | ||
| includeTags | No | ||
| jsonOptions | No | ||
| queryOptions | No | ||
| storeInCache | No | ||
| onlyMainContent | No | ||
| declaredSizeBytes | No | ||
| zeroDataRetention | No | ||
| removeBase64Images | No | ||
| skipTlsVerification | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description builds on this by disclosing the local vs hosted two-phase upload flow, pdfOptions.maxPages bounding, redactPII behavior, and the zeroDataRetention account requirement. No contradictions.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then compactly covers the most important usage variations and options in four sentences. No repetition of schema or annotation data.
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 complex 19-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior, return value, local/hosted workflows, and exclusions. It does not mention several secondary options (e.g., includeTags/excludeTags, onlyMainContent, proxy, maxAge), but those are not central to selecting the tool.
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?
The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the local/hosted filePath/uploadRef relationship, pdfOptions.maxPages, redactPII, zeroDataRetention eligibility, and the output types (markdown/html/links/summary/query/json). It leaves some self-explanatory options (proxy, maxAge, tags) unprompted, but the semantically opaque parameters are mostly clarified.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb-object statement: 'Parse one supported document into markdown, HTML, links, summary, targeted answers, or JSON matching a schema.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'Remote web URLs belong in firecrawl_scrape.'
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?
It explicitly says when to use the tool (supported local documents) and what not to use it for ('Remote web URLs belong in firecrawl_scrape'). It further gives usage flow for local vs hosted MCP, including the two-call upload instruction and the rule 'do not send both fields together.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
firecrawl_scrapeARetrieve and extract content from one supplied URL through Firecrawl. Use this when the request identifies a page and needs its content or defined fields. It can return markdown, HTML, links, screenshots, branding data, a targeted answer, or JSON matching a supplied schema; JSON is useful when the requested result has defined fields, while markdown preserves readable page content.
This tool operates on a known page. For a set of pages use firecrawl_crawl, and to discover page URLs use firecrawl_map or firecrawl_search. Options include JavaScript render delay, cache age, main-content filtering, PII redaction, and lockdown cache-only retrieval. Browser actions may change the live page when interactive actions are enabled.
Firecrawl may reuse recently indexed content instead of refetching the page, and the reuse window varies by domain. Set maxAge: 0 to force a live fetch, or a smaller maxAge to bound how stale reused content may be. A successful response does not by itself confirm that the state it describes is still current.
Returns the selected content formats and page metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| proxy | No | ||
| maxAge | No | ||
| mobile | No | ||
| formats | No | ||
| parsers | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| waitFor | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| lockdown | No | ||
| redactPII | No | ||
| pdfOptions | No | ||
| excludeTags | No | ||
| includeTags | No | ||
| jsonOptions | No | ||
| queryOptions | No | ||
| storeInCache | No | ||
| onlyMainContent | No | ||
| screenshotOptions | No | ||
| zeroDataRetention | No | ||
| removeBase64Images | No | ||
| skipTlsVerification | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states 'Browser actions may change the live page when interactive actions are enabled,' implying a write/modification capability. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation. Additionally, the description does not reconcile this contradiction, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects. Per the rubric, a score of 1 is required due to the annotation contradiction.
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?
The description is moderately long but well-structured into four logical paragraphs: purpose, alternatives, options, and caching caveats. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated mention of 'known page'), but for a tool with 22 parameters, the length is justified and every paragraph serves a distinct informational goal.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (22 params, no output schema, sparse annotations), the description covers a lot: usage context, format selection guidance, alternative tools, caching behavior with maxAge, and a caveat about staleness. It also states what is returned ('selected content formats and page metadata'). It is not perfect—return value details are minimal and the readOnly contradiction undermines completeness—but overall it is rich and situationally useful.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 22 undocumented parameters. It does add meaningful semantics for key params like maxAge ('Set maxAge: 0 to force a live fetch'), formats (markdown vs JSON), and option categories like main-content filtering and PII redaction. However, many parameters (proxy, location, mobile, profile, screenshotOptions, etc.) remain unexplained, and the generic 'Options include' phrase does not fully cover the breadth. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Retrieve and extract content from one supplied URL through Firecrawl.' It names a specific verb-resource pair, differentiates from sibling tools by noting this operates on a known page while firecrawl_crawl handles sets of pages and firecrawl_map/firecrawl_search discover URLs, and enumerates concrete output formats (markdown, HTML, screenshots, JSON). This is specific and unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the request identifies a page and needs its content or defined fields.' It also provides clear alternatives: for a set of pages use firecrawl_crawl, and for discovery use firecrawl_map or firecrawl_search. This gives the agent explicit decision criteria relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
firecrawl_searchASearch web, news, or image sources and return ranked results. Operators include quoted phrases, -term, site:host, inurl:term, intitle:term, and related:host; the set is non-exhaustive. includeDomains and excludeDomains are mutually exclusive hostname filters; categories limit results to GitHub, research, PDF, or developer sources.
For a programming question, add categories: ["developer"]. It searches an index of GitHub issues, merged pull requests, repository READMEs, and curated documentation sites, and returns the hits in data.developer beside the web results.
categories: ["research"] restricts these web results to research-affiliated websites and returns page snippets. The firecrawl_research_* tools are a separate surface that searches paper abstracts and full text across biomedical (PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv) and arXiv literature.
scrapeOptions can attach extracted page content; pages fetched this way use a fixed reuse window and ignore maxAge, so use firecrawl_scrape when a live fetch is required. Returns source-type result groups and usage metadata. Authenticated responses can include an id for optional search feedback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tbs | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| filter | No | ||
| sources | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| categories | No | ||
| enterprise | No | ||
| highlights | No | ||
| scrapeOptions | No | ||
| excludeDomains | No | ||
| includeDomains | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: includes query operators, mutual exclusivity of `includeDomains`/`excludeDomains`, the fixed reuse window and maxAge ignorance for `scrapeOptions`, and return format ('source-type result groups and usage metadata', `data.developer`, optional `id`). No contradiction with `readOnlyHint`/`destructiveHint`.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes usage tips and caveats in separate paragraphs. Every sentence adds value—operator syntax, category specifics, scrapeOptions caveat, and return details—with no redundant filler.
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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description covers critical behaviors (categories, domain filters, scrapeOptions limitation) and return characteristics (source-type groups, usage metadata, optional id). It does not explain several parameters, so it is not fully complete, but the most important usage paths are covered.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `includeDomains`/`excludeDomains` exclusivity, `categories` meanings (developer/research), and `scrapeOptions` caveat. However, it leaves many parameters undocumented (e.g., `tbs`, `limit`, `filter`, `location`, `enterprise`, `highlights`). The guidance for `query` operators is useful, but coverage of the 12-parameter surface is incomplete.
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?
The description opens with a clear verb-resource pairing: 'Search web, news, or image sources and return ranked results.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting when to use `firecrawl_scrape` for live fetches and mentioning `firecrawl_research_*` as a separate surface for research literature.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For a programming question, add `categories: ["developer"]`' and 'use `firecrawl_scrape` when a live fetch is required.' It also clarifies category semantics (developer/research) and contrasts with research tools, giving clear exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
