Outscraper MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Outscraper Request Status

requests_get

Check an asynchronous Outscraper request's status to see if it is pending, succeeded, or failed, and retrieve the completed data.

Instructions

Check the status of an asynchronous Outscraper request.

Use this after calling any tool with execution_mode="async" or after an auto-selected async submission. Typical flow:

call google_maps_reviews, company_insights, emails_and_contacts, or google_maps_search with execution_mode="async"
capture the returned request id
poll requests_get until the job is completed or failed

Use this tool when:

a previous tool returned an async request id
you want to know whether the request is Pending, Success, or Failure
you need the completed data from a previously submitted async job

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes	Async request id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`async`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.5Sep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

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

changedOutput schema / $schema

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

First observedv0.2.3Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that callers must poll until completion or failure and mentions the Pending/Success/Failure statuses, which is useful. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, note rate-limit considerations, or clarify what happens if the request id is invalid.

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?

The description is well structured: a clear lead sentence, a short typical flow, and a bulleted when-to-use list. Every section earns its place and the most important starting point is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter status-polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger, the flow, the parameter source, and termination conditions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already covers the only parameter with 'Async request id.' and has 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by explaining the id comes from a prior async submission and should be captured after calling an async tool, which adds modest context but no new format or syntax details.

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 crisp verb-resource pairing: 'Check the status of an asynchronous Outscraper request.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like requests_list and requests_delete by focusing specifically on status polling of an already-submitted request.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use conditions: after an async call, when an async request id was returned, and when pending/success/failure status is needed. It also presents a typical flow. It does not name an alternative like requests_list for listing or cleaning requests, so the exclusions are implicit rather than explicit.

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