Skip to main content
Glama
Krieg2065

Firecrawl MCP Server

by Krieg2065

firecrawl_check_crawl_status

Monitor the progress and completion status of web crawling jobs to track data collection tasks.

Instructions

Check the status of a crawl job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCrawl job ID to check

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler logic for the 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status' tool. It validates arguments using isStatusCheckOptions, calls client.checkCrawlStatus(id), formats the status response, and returns it.
          case 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status': {
            if (!isStatusCheckOptions(args)) {
              throw new Error('Invalid arguments for firecrawl_check_crawl_status');
            }
            const response = await client.checkCrawlStatus(args.id);
            if (!response.success) {
              throw new Error(response.error);
            }
            const status = `Crawl Status:
    Status: ${response.status}
    Progress: ${response.completed}/${response.total}
    Credits Used: ${response.creditsUsed}
    Expires At: ${response.expiresAt}
    ${
      response.data.length > 0 ? '\nResults:\n' + formatResults(response.data) : ''
    }`;
            return {
              content: [{ type: 'text', text: trimResponseText(status) }],
              isError: false,
            };
          }
  • The Tool object defining the name, description, and input schema (requiring 'id' string) for 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status'.
    const CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status',
      description: 'Check the status of a crawl job.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Crawl job ID to check',
          },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
    };
  • src/index.ts:960-974 (registration)
    Registration of all tools including 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status' (as CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL) in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [
        SCRAPE_TOOL,
        MAP_TOOL,
        CRAWL_TOOL,
        BATCH_SCRAPE_TOOL,
        CHECK_BATCH_STATUS_TOOL,
        CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL,
        SEARCH_TOOL,
        EXTRACT_TOOL,
        DEEP_RESEARCH_TOOL,
        GENERATE_LLMSTXT_TOOL,
      ],
    }));
  • Type guard helper function isStatusCheckOptions used to validate input arguments for status check tools, including firecrawl_check_crawl_status.
    function isStatusCheckOptions(args: unknown): args is StatusCheckOptions {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'id' in args &&
        typeof (args as { id: unknown }).id === 'string'
      );
  • Type interface StatusCheckOptions defining the expected input shape {id: string} for status check tools.
    interface StatusCheckOptions {
      id: string;
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, what the status response looks like, whether it's real-time or cached, or error conditions. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple single-parameter status check tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks important context about the status response format, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. With no annotations to provide behavioral context, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for understanding the tool's basic function.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Crawl job ID to check' in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('check') and resource ('status of a crawl job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'firecrawl_check_batch_status' or 'firecrawl_crawl', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'firecrawl_check_batch_status' and 'firecrawl_crawl' that likely involve similar status-checking or crawling operations, there's no indication of when this specific 'crawl job status' check is appropriate versus other status-related tools.

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