post_firecrawl_mapUsage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.001071 USD (not a fixed price). Declared unit rate: $0.001071 USD per firecrawl_credit. Account-specific pricing and final settlement may differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / bodyAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "maximum": 100000,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "https_url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "limit",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / limitRemoved value: -{
- "maximum": 100000,
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "format": "https_url",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "limit",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "body"
+]Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Maximum number of links to discover. Required on the metered profile."Input schema / properties / limit / exampleRemoved value: -100Input schema / properties / url / descriptionRemoved value: -"The HTTPS URL to map."Input schema / properties / url / exampleRemoved value: -"https://docs.firecrawl.dev"Input schema / properties / url / formatPrevious value: -"uri"New value: +"https_url"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "url",
- "limit"
-]New value: +[
+ "limit",
+ "url"
+]Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of links to discover. Required on the metered profile."Input schema / properties / limit / exampleAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"The HTTPS URL to map."Input schema / properties / url / exampleAdded value: +"https://docs.firecrawl.dev"Input schema / properties / url / formatPrevious value: -"https_url"New value: +"uri"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "limit",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "url",
+ "limit"
+]Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Maximum number of links to discover. Required on the metered profile."Input schema / properties / limit / exampleRemoved value: -100Input schema / properties / url / descriptionRemoved value: -"The HTTPS URL to map."Input schema / properties / url / exampleRemoved value: -"https://docs.firecrawl.dev"Input schema / properties / url / formatPrevious value: -"uri"New value: +"https_url"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "url",
- "limit"
-]New value: +[
+ "limit",
+ "url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description discloses nothing about behavior, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The only content is pricing boilerplate, which does not add any behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 text is short, but every word is pricing boilerplate that does not help select or invoke the tool. Brevity here reflects absent content rather than efficient communication of the tool's purpose.
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 destructive, open-world POST tool with a nested object parameter and zero schema descriptions, the description supplies none of the required context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but purpose, usage, and parameter meaning are all missing.
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 single nested body parameter (with url and limit) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It gives no hint about what url or limit mean, valid ranges, or expected formats, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented everywhere.
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 never states what the tool does. It contains only billing metadata ('Usage-based billing; Default request estimate: $0.001071 USD'), which is a pricing note rather than a purpose statement. The agent must infer the function purely from the name 'post_firecrawl_map'.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as post_tavily_map, post_firecrawl_crawl, or post_firecrawl_scrape, and no preconditions. Nothing in the text helps an agent decide between this tool and its numerous siblings.
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.