Firecrawl MCP Server

Firecrawl related research papers

firecrawl_research_related_papers

Read-only

Finds related papers and citation-graph candidates from up to ten seed IDs, using similar, citers, or references modes and ranking results by your research intent.

Instructions

Find citation-graph candidates from one to ten seed_ids; the first ID is the primary seed and later IDs are anchors. mode defaults to similar (co-citation/bibliographic coupling); citers returns papers citing a seed and references papers cited by a seed. intent ranks candidates.

Returns ranked candidates and the evaluated pool size.

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": {
      "seed_ids": "<seed_ids>",
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "firecrawl_research_related_papers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`k`	No
`mode`	No
`intent`	Yes
`rerank`	No	Apply an additional rerank over the fused candidates.
`seed_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Note about how the candidates were produced.
`results`	Yes	Ranked citation-graph candidates.
`poolSize`	Yes	Number of candidates evaluated before ranking.
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked and that a "evaluated pool size" is reported, plus the ranking role of `intent`, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or behavior when a seed ID is unknown. Reasonable but not rich beyond annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core operation plus seed semantics are front-loaded. The semicolon-compressed mode glosses are terse but readable; a slightly clearer sentence on `k` would have been a better use of space than nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. Against that lower bar the definition still leaves an agent guessing about result count control (`k`), what `intent` should contain, and what `rerank` changes — gaps that matter for a 5-parameter, 2-required 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It does well for `seed_ids` (1–10 items, first is primary seed, later are anchors) and fully enumerates `mode` values with the default, but `k` (result count, max 500) and `rerank` are never mentioned, and `intent` is only described as something that "ranks candidates" with no hint of accepted form.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Find citation-graph candidates from one to ten `seed_ids`", and the mode sentence clarifies the three retrieval shapes (co-citation coupling, citers, references). That is enough to distinguish it from `firecrawl_research_search_papers` (query-based search) without naming the sibling, but the differentiation is left implicit.

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 mode definitions implicitly tell an agent when each behavior applies (citers vs references vs similar), which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over `firecrawl_research_search_papers` or `firecrawl_research_inspect_paper`, and no prerequisites such as whether seed IDs must come from a prior search.

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