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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: parse handles local/uploaded documents, scrape retrieves a single known URL, and search discovers pages via querying. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to prevent confusion, such as parse noting web URLs belong in scrape and scrape directing multi-page needs to crawl.
All tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern with the unified prefix 'firecrawl_' (parse, scrape, search). The verbs are distinct actions, creating a predictable and readable convention throughout the entire set.
Three tools is on the thin side, given the descriptions reference additional capabilities like crawl and map that are not exposed in this set. However, the three tools do cover the core distinct operations of parsing, scraping, and searching coherently without bloat.
The set provides parse, scrape, and search, covering document parsing, single-page extraction, and web discovery. Notable gaps exist: the descriptions reference crawl (multi-page) and map (URL discovery) operations that are not included, and there's no batch or bulk extraction capability, leaving agents without multi-page workflows.
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_scrapeBRetrieve 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.
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?
The description states 'Browser actions may change the live page when interactive actions are enabled,' which directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true. This is a clear annotation contradiction. The description does provide some useful context (e.g., cache age, main-content filtering), but the contradiction forces a score of 1.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. It is structured into three paragraphs: purpose, usage/alternatives, and return value. Minor redundancy exists in 'Retrieve and extract,' and the third paragraph is brief but not wasteful, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level overview of options and return formats, but does not explain the output structure beyond 'Returns the selected content formats and page metadata' and leaves many parameters undocumented. The lack of output schema places more burden on the description to explain return values, which is not met.
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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that formats like markdown preserve readable content and JSON is useful for defined fields. It also mentions 'JavaScript render delay, cache age, main-content filtering, PII redaction, and lockdown cache-only retrieval,' which maps to parameters like waitFor, maxAge, onlyMainContent, redactPII, and lockdown. However, with schema description coverage at 0% and 22 parameters, many parameters (proxy, mobile, parsers, location, etc.) remain unexplained, so the description only partially compensates.
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 purpose: 'Retrieve and extract content from one supplied URL'. It provides a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from firecrawl_crawl, firecrawl_map, and firecrawl_search by noting it operates on a known page. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool firecrawl_parse, so it falls short of fully distinguishing from all siblings.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when the request identifies a page and needs its content or defined fields.' It also states when not to use it: 'For a set of pages use firecrawl_crawl, and to discover page URLs use firecrawl_map or firecrawl_search.' This clearly names alternatives and provides both positive and negative use cases.
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.
scrapeOptions can attach extracted page content. 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds beyond that: operators are non-exhaustive, includeDomains/excludeDomains are mutually exclusive, developer categories return hits in a distinct data.developer group, and authenticated responses can include an id for feedback. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't describe pagination or result group structure in detail.
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?
Four concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states purpose; the second gives a decisive usage tip; the third and fourth add params and output context. Each sentence earns its place without padding. Slightly dense but no redundancy.
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?
The tool has 12 params with nested objects (scrapeOptions is a large nested structure) and no output schema, which raises the bar. The description covers the most important params and the developer-category special case well, but leaves several params undocumented entirely (tbs, enterprise, highlights, location, filter). For a complex search tool with heavy schema, it is complete enough to use correctly for common cases but not exhaustive.
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 carry the semantic load. It explains categories (github, research, pdf, developer), includeDomains/excludeDomains as hostname filters with mutual exclusivity, scrapeOptions for attaching extracted content, and sources/web/news/image types implicitly. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema for several key params, though multiple params (tbs, enterprise, highlights, location, filter) remain unexplained in the description.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search web, news, or image sources and return ranked results') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings by describing the search-specific behavior (operators, domain filters, categories, returning ranked hits) versus firecrawl_parse and firecrawl_scrape. It maps to an obvious search tool distinct from the scrap/parse siblings.
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 gives explicit usage guidance, notably for programming questions: 'add `categories: ["developer"]`' with explanation of what that index searches. It also specifies mutual exclusivity of includeDomains/excludeDomains and how scrapeOptions can attach page content. This is actionable 'when to use and how' guidance beyond any sibling ambiguity.
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!
