firecrawl_searchSearch the web and optionally scrape result pages inline to get markdown content for research, monitoring, or data collection.
Search the web using Firecrawl with optional inline scrape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| scrapeInline | No | Whether to include inline markdown scraping |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description contributes one extra behavioral fact — that inline scraping can be toggled — but says nothing about rate limits, result shape, or the cost/latency tradeoff of scraping inline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple three-parameter tool. It is efficiently sized, though it is so terse that it omits routing and behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description needn't explain returns, and annotations cover safety, but the definition is thin: it never explains how this differs from the many sibling search/fetch tools available. Minimum viable, with a clear differentiation gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with three documented parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The phrase 'optional inline scrape' loosely maps to scrapeInline but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Search the web using Firecrawl') and notes the inline-scrape capability, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like navig_web_search, firecrawl_scrape, or firecrawl_crawl, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to choose this over navig_web_search or firecrawl_scrape/crawl, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent gets no routing signal from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.