Skip to main content
Glama
ampcome-mcps

Firecrawl MCP Server

by ampcome-mcps

firecrawl_check_crawl_status

Check the status and progress of a web crawling job, including viewing 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

  • Main execution logic for the firecrawl_check_crawl_status tool. Validates arguments, calls Firecrawl client to check crawl status, formats the response with status details and results.
          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,
            };
          }
  • Tool definition object containing name, description, and input schema for validating arguments (requires 'id' string).
    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:962-973 (registration)
    Registration of all tools including CHECK_CRAWL_STATUS_TOOL in the MCP server's listTools 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 to validate arguments for firecrawl_check_crawl_status tool.
    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 shape for the tool.
    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 (e.g., it's a read operation that may include results). However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether it's idempotent, potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a usage example and return information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what 'status and progress' entails would improve completeness, but it's minimally viable for this simple tool.

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 extra meaning beyond this, such as format details or examples of valid IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without additional description input.

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 (check) and resource (crawl job). It distinguishes from siblings like firecrawl_crawl (which initiates crawls) and firecrawl_scrape (which extracts data), but doesn't explicitly contrast them in the description itself, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 an example with a crawl job ID, suggesting it's used after initiating a crawl (e.g., with firecrawl_crawl). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, such as needing an existing job ID from a previous operation.

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/ampcome-mcps/firecrawl-mcp'

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