Firecrawl MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Firecrawl related research papers

firecrawl_research_related_papers

Read-only

Find and rank related papers by citation graph using seed IDs; select similar papers, citers, or references to support literature discovery.

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.

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.36.1Nov 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / authors / description

Previous value: -"Authors, as a comma-joined string or as `{name, affiliation}` entries."New value: +"Authors, as a list of names or a comma-joined string."

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / createdDate / description

Previous value: -"Date the paper was first indexed or published."New value: +"Date the paper was first indexed or published (`YYYY-MM-DD`)."

changedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / updateDate / description

Previous value: -"Date the paper was last updated."New value: +"Date the paper was last updated (`YYYY-MM-DD`)."

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2Oct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Ranked citation-graph candidates and the size of the evaluated pool.",
+  "properties": {
+    "note": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Note about how the candidates were produced."
+    },
+    "poolSize": {
+      "description": "Number of candidates evaluated before ranking.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Ranked citation-graph candidates.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "abstract": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Paper abstract."
+          },
+          "authors": {
+            "description": "Authors, as a comma-joined string or as `{name, affiliation}` entries."
+          },
+          "categories": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Paper categories, such as `cs.LG`."
+          },
+          "createdDate": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Date the paper was first indexed or published."
+          },
+          "ids": {
+            "description": "Source identifiers by namespace, such as `arxiv`, `doi`, or `pmid`."
+          },
+          "paperId": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Canonical paper identifier."
+          },
+          "primaryId": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Display identifier, ordered for citation and fetch use."
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Paper title."
+          },
+          "updateDate": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Date the paper was last updated."
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "results",
+    "poolSize"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.1Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 that results are ranked and that an 'evaluated pool size' is reported, which hints at cost/scope, but it says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what happens with a weak seed set. With annotations in place, a 3 is fair.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then mode semantics, then the return shape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 spelled out, and the description still summarizes the return shape. The only gap is the unexplained 'k' bound, which is minor for a read-only retrieval tool with a documented schema and annotations.

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 only 20%, so the description carries real weight here and mostly delivers: it explains seed_ids ordering semantics (first is primary, later are anchors), the mode enum values and default, and that intent drives ranking. It leaves 'k' (result count, max 500) unexplained, while 'rerank' is already documented in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find citation-graph candidates') and scopes it to 'one to ten seed_ids'. The citation-graph framing clearly separates it from the sibling search/read/inspect paper tools, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: 'similar' (co-citation/bibliographic coupling), 'citers' for papers citing a seed, 'references' for papers cited by a seed, plus the default. It does not say when to prefer this over firecrawl_research_search_papers, so it stops short of a 5.

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