Firecrawl MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks status and progress, including results if available, which covers basic behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a usage example and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is efficient with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage example, but lacks details on behavioral traits and full parameter context. For a simple status-check tool, this is adequate but not thorough, as it doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and schema descriptions.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds value by implying in the example that 'id' is a UUID string for identifying a crawl job, but it doesn't explain where to get this ID or its format beyond the example. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage but is minimal, aligning with the baseline for moderate compensation.

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 as 'Check the status of a crawl job,' which is a specific verb ('check') and resource ('crawl job'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'firecrawl_crawl' (which initiates crawls) and 'firecrawl_agent_status' (which might check agent status), but could be more explicit about differentiation. It's not tautological and provides a clear function.

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 implies usage by providing an example with an 'id' parameter, suggesting it's used after a crawl job is initiated (e.g., with 'firecrawl_crawl'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'firecrawl_agent_status' or other status-checking siblings, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is contextually implied but not fully articulated.

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