Firecrawl MCP Server

Firecrawl website map

firecrawl_map

Read-only

Enumerate URLs indexed under a website without fetching page content. Use optional search, sitemap, subdomain, and query-parameter controls to locate relevant pages when the desired URL is unknown.

Instructions

Enumerate URLs indexed under one website through Firecrawl without fetching each page's content. Use this when the request asks for a site's URL inventory, when several relevant pages must be located, or when the desired page URL is unknown. An optional search term narrows the URL list, while sitemap, subdomain, query-parameter, and result-limit options control coverage.

Returns matching URLs rather than page bodies. Retrieve one page with firecrawl_scrape; collect content across multiple pages with firecrawl_crawl. Authenticated responses can include an id for optional map feedback.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "firecrawl_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`limit`	No
`search`	No
`sitemap`	No
`includeSubdomains`	No
`ignoreQueryParameters`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Identifier of the map run, for optional map feedback.
`error`	No	Error message or error object when the call did not succeed.
`links`	No	URLs discovered under the website.
`success`	No	Whether the API call succeeded.
`warning`	No	Non-fatal warning about the result.
`agent_hints`	No	Optional response guidance from the Firecrawl API.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.28.2Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns URLs rather than page bodies, and authenticated responses may carry an `id` used for optional map feedback. It stops short of mentioning credit cost or rate limits, which would push it to 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose, then usage plus parameter overview, then return shape and sibling routing. No sentence is redundant and the scoping constraint arrives before the alternatives.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, yet the description still clarifies that output is URLs not content. Combined with explicit sibling routing, a full parameter overview and the auth/`id` note, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: it explains that `search` narrows the URL list and that the sitemap, subdomain, query-parameter and result-limit options control coverage, mapping onto all six parameters. The gap is that the sitemap enum values (include/skip/only) and what `limit` counts are never spelled out.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate URLs indexed under one website ... without fetching each page's content.' The negative clause ('without fetching content') immediately separates it from content-retrieval tools, so an agent can distinguish it from firecrawl_scrape and firecrawl_crawl without reading either schema.

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?

It states three concrete triggering conditions ('the request asks for a site's URL inventory', 'several relevant pages must be located', 'the desired page URL is unknown') and then names the alternatives explicitly: firecrawl_scrape for a single page, firecrawl_crawl for multi-page content. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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