Skip to main content
Glama
JayceeTran1995

Firecrawl MCP Server

firecrawl_check_crawl_status

Monitor the progress and retrieve results of web crawling jobs initiated through the Firecrawl MCP Server, providing real-time status updates on content extraction tasks.

Instructions

Check the status of a crawl job.

Usage Example:

{
  "name": "firecrawl_check_crawl_status",
  "arguments": {
    "id": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"
  }
}

Returns: Status and progress of the crawl job, including results if available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:523-548 (registration)
    Registration of the 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status' tool using FastMCP's server.addTool method, including name, description, parameters schema, and execute handler.
    server.addTool({
      name: 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status',
      description: `
    Check the status of a crawl job.
    
    **Usage Example:**
    \`\`\`json
    {
      "name": "firecrawl_check_crawl_status",
      "arguments": {
        "id": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"
      }
    }
    \`\`\`
    **Returns:** Status and progress of the crawl job, including results if available.
    `,
      parameters: z.object({ id: z.string() }),
      execute: async (
        args: unknown,
        { session }: { session?: SessionData }
      ): Promise<string> => {
        const client = getClient(session);
        const res = await client.getCrawlStatus((args as any).id as string);
        return asText(res);
      },
    });
  • The handler function that executes the tool: retrieves the Firecrawl client from session, calls getCrawlStatus with the provided ID, and returns the stringified response.
    execute: async (
      args: unknown,
      { session }: { session?: SessionData }
    ): Promise<string> => {
      const client = getClient(session);
      const res = await client.getCrawlStatus((args as any).id as string);
      return asText(res);
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the tool: a single 'id' string.
    parameters: z.object({ id: z.string() }),
  • Helper function to stringify data to formatted JSON, used in the tool's response.
    function asText(data: unknown): string {
      return JSON.stringify(data, null, 2);
    }
  • Helper function to create and return a FirecrawlApp client instance, handling authentication based on environment and session.
    function getClient(session?: SessionData): FirecrawlApp {
      // For cloud service, API key is required
      if (process.env.CLOUD_SERVICE === 'true') {
        if (!session || !session.firecrawlApiKey) {
          throw new Error('Unauthorized');
        }
        return createClient(session.firecrawlApiKey);
      }
    
      // For self-hosted instances, API key is optional if FIRECRAWL_API_URL is provided
      if (
        !process.env.FIRECRAWL_API_URL &&
        (!session || !session.firecrawlApiKey)
      ) {
        throw new Error(
          'Unauthorized: API key is required when not using a self-hosted instance'
        );
      }
    
      return createClient(session?.firecrawlApiKey);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'Status and progress of the crawl job, including results if available,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the purpose statement. The usage example and returns note are useful additions that earn their place. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or headings.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose, parameter hint, and return info, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 usage example that 'id' is a UUID (e.g., '550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000'), which clarifies its format. However, it doesn't explain where this ID comes from (e.g., from 'firecrawl_crawl') or any constraints, leaving some gaps. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the purpose as 'Check the status of a crawl job,' which is a specific verb ('check') and resource ('crawl job'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'firecrawl_crawl' (which initiates crawls) and 'firecrawl_scrape' (which extracts data), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status-checking tools if any existed. The clarity is high but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by providing a usage example with an 'id' parameter, suggesting it's used after initiating a crawl job (e.g., with 'firecrawl_crawl'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is implied but not detailed, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JayceeTran1995/firecrawl-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server