Skip to main content
Glama
ashishdevthakur3-max

Firecrawl MCP Server

firecrawl_check_crawl_status

Monitor the progress and retrieve results of web crawling jobs initiated through the Firecrawl MCP Server by providing the crawl job ID.

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 implementation of the firecrawl_check_crawl_status tool handler in the switch case.
          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,
            };
  • src/index.ts:387-400 (registration)
    Registration of the firecrawl_check_crawl_status tool.
    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"
      }
    }
    \`\`\`
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 states the tool checks status and returns progress and results, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. For a status-checking 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 core purpose. The usage example and returns statement are relevant but could be more integrated. It avoids redundancy, but the structure is slightly fragmented, with the example in a code block and returns info separate, reducing efficiency.

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 info, but lacks context on how it fits with siblings or error scenarios. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more behavioral detail to be fully complete.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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: 'Check the status of a crawl job.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('crawl job'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'firecrawl_crawl' or 'firecrawl_search', which might also involve crawl-related operations, so it doesn't reach 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 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 mentions checking status but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after initiating a crawl) or contrast with siblings like 'firecrawl_crawl' for starting a crawl. The usage example shows how to invoke it, but not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer context.

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/ashishdevthakur3-max/firecrawl-mcp'

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