Firecrawl MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the polling behavior, timing constraints, and possible status outcomes ('processing', 'completed', 'failed'). However, it doesn't mention error handling details, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are minor gaps for a status-checking tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, important polling guidelines, usage example, status explanations, and return value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with behavioral complexity, though the polling instructions are somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 status-checking tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal input schema, the description provides comprehensive context about behavior, usage patterns, and expected outcomes. It covers the polling workflow thoroughly. The main gap is the lack of output schema details, but the description mentions what's returned ('Status, progress, and results'), which partially compensates.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id'. The description compensates by providing a usage example showing 'id' as a UUID string ('550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000'), which clarifies its format and purpose. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain where to obtain this ID from the initial agent job.

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: 'Check the status of an agent job and retrieve results when complete.' It specifies the verb ('check', 'retrieve'), resource ('agent job'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'firecrawl_agent' by indicating this is for polling after starting an agent.

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 this tool: 'Use this to poll for results after starting an agent with `firecrawl_agent`.' It provides detailed guidance on polling frequency (every 15-30 seconds), duration (2-3 minutes minimum, up to 5+ minutes), and when to stop (only on 'completed' or 'failed' status). This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like checking crawl status or other agent tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.