Firecrawl MCP Server

Firecrawl credit usage

firecrawl_credit_usage

Read-only

Check the authenticated Firecrawl team's remaining credits or review historical monthly credit usage, optionally broken down by API key, to support billing checks and usage trend analysis.

Instructions

Get the authenticated Firecrawl team's current credit balance or historical credit consumption. Use the current view to answer how many credits remain or to check billing-period boundaries. Use the historical view for monthly usage reporting and trend analysis.

The current view returns remainingCredits, planCredits, billingPeriodStart, and billingPeriodEnd. Extra purchased or granted credits can make remainingCredits greater than planCredits. Billing-period dates may be null when the upstream billing provider has no period metadata.

The historical view returns periods sorted by start date with startDate, endDate, and creditsUsed. Set byApiKey to include separate periods per API key, identified by the optional apiKey field. The newest period's endDate can be null.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "firecrawl_credit_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	Select current balance or historical monthly usage. Defaults to current.
`byApiKey`	No	Break historical usage down by API key. When view is omitted, true selects the historical view; it cannot be combined with view "current".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message or error object when the call did not succeed.
`periods`	No	Historical periods sorted by start date, each with `startDate`, `endDate`, `creditsUsed`, and `apiKey` when broken down by key.
`success`	No	Whether the API call succeeded.
`planCredits`	No	Credits included in the plan for the period.
`billingPeriodEnd`	No	End of the current billing period; null when the billing provider reports no period.
`remainingCredits`	No	Credits left in the current billing period; can exceed `planCredits` when extra credits were purchased or granted.
`billingPeriodStart`	No	Start of the current billing period; null when the billing provider reports no period.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.28.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation, yet the description still adds real behavioral value: remainingCredits can exceed planCredits due to purchased/granted credits, billing dates may be null when upstream metadata is absent, and the newest historical period's endDate can be null. A good share of the text restates return fields rather than behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the usage split in the first paragraph, then dedicates one paragraph per view — a clean structure. Slightly verbose in enumerating return fields, but every paragraph maps to a distinct caller question.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Two optional parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema that already defines the return shape. The description covers both modes, the edge cases (null dates, credits exceeding plan), and the byApiKey interaction, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by tying byApiKey to per-key period separation and naming the optional apiKey identifier that appears in results. The default-to-current and view-conflict behavior is already in the schema, so the extra value is modest.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the authenticated Firecrawl team's current credit balance or historical credit consumption') and immediately splits the tool into two named views. No sibling tool covers billing/credits, and the description makes that scope unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the caller: current view for 'how many credits remain' and billing-period boundaries, historical view for monthly usage reporting and trend analysis. That is concrete when-to-use guidance for both modes with no ambiguity left.

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