Skip to main content
Glama
NYO2008

Firecrawl MCP Server

by NYO2008

firecrawl_check_crawl_status

Check the status and progress of a web crawling job to monitor completion and retrieve results when available.

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
idYesCrawl job ID to check

Implementation Reference

  • The handler case for 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status' in the tool call switch statement. Validates arguments using isStatusCheckOptions, calls client.checkCrawlStatus(id), formats status including progress and results using formatResults, and returns formatted text content.
          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 definition for firecrawl_check_crawl_status, including name, detailed description with usage example, and inputSchema requiring a string 'id'.
    const CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL: Tool = {
      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.
    `,
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Crawl job ID to check',
          },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
    };
  • src/index.ts:955-966 (registration)
    Registration of all tools including CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [
        SCRAPE_TOOL,
        MAP_TOOL,
        CRAWL_TOOL,
        CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL,
        SEARCH_TOOL,
        EXTRACT_TOOL,
        DEEP_RESEARCH_TOOL,
        GENERATE_LLMSTXT_TOOL,
      ],
    }));
  • Type guard function isStatusCheckOptions used to validate arguments for the firecrawl_check_crawl_status handler.
    function isStatusCheckOptions(args: unknown): args is StatusCheckOptions {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'id' in args &&
        typeof (args as { id: unknown }).id === 'string'
      );
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the expected arguments for status check: { id: string }.
    interface StatusCheckOptions {
      id: string;
    }
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. It mentions that the tool returns 'Status and progress of the crawl job, including results if available,' which gives some behavioral insight into output content. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation, which are critical for a status-checking tool in a crawl system.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a usage example and return details. It's relatively concise at three sentences, with no redundant information. However, the example could be integrated more seamlessly, and some structural elements like markdown formatting are present but not excessive.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return values but lacks context on integration with sibling tools, error scenarios, or operational constraints. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively in a workflow.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Crawl job ID to check.' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 tool's purpose as 'Check the status of a crawl job,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this status-checking tool from its siblings like firecrawl_crawl or firecrawl_scrape, which likely perform different operations on crawl jobs.

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. It includes a usage example but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after initiating a crawl with firecrawl_crawl) or contrast it with other tools that might handle crawl-related tasks, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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/NYO2008/firecrawl-mcp-server'

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