Skip to main content
Glama
ritvij14

crawl4ai-mcp

by ritvij14
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: crawl_website handles multi-page crawling with depth and page limits, while scrape_webpage focuses on single-page extraction. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on whether it needs to crawl multiple pages or scrape just one.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (crawl_website and scrape_webpage), using snake_case and descriptive action-object naming. This consistency makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for a web crawling/scraping domain. While the tools cover basic crawling and scraping, typical MCP servers in this domain would include additional utilities like filtering, parsing, or handling different content types, making this set appear incomplete and limited in scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for web crawling and scraping. It lacks essential operations such as updating crawl parameters, deleting or managing crawl jobs, handling errors or retries, and processing extracted data (e.g., cleaning, summarizing). This forces agents into dead ends for common workflows beyond basic one-off tasks.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scrapes content and metadata, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Crawl4AI' entails (e.g., if it's a library or service). This leaves significant gaps for a web scraping tool.

    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?

    The description is concise and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('List containing TextContent with the result as JSON'), which slightly reduces efficiency.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and the structure of returned data, making it inadequate for a tool that interacts with external web resources.

    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 description adds minimal semantics: it defines 'url' as 'The URL of the webpage to scrape'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic meaning, but doesn't elaborate on URL format constraints or validation, leaving room for improvement.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scrape content and metadata from a single webpage using Crawl4AI.' It specifies the verb ('scrape'), resource ('content and metadata'), and scope ('single webpage'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'crawl_website' beyond implying single vs. multi-page operations.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'single webpage' and the sibling is named 'crawl_website', which might imply this is for single pages while the sibling is for entire sites, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving usage context unclear.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions crawling behavior but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what 'crawl' entails (e.g., following links, scraping content), whether it respects robots.txt, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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 and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

    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?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the basic operation and parameters adequately. However, it lacks information about return format details (beyond 'List containing TextContent with a JSON array'), error conditions, and behavioral constraints that would be needed for robust use.

    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 must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'url' as the starting URL, 'crawl_depth' as maximum depth relative to starting URL, and 'max_pages' as maximum pages to scrape. Default values are also documented. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crawl a website starting from the given URL up to a specified depth and page limit.' It specifies the verb ('crawl'), resource ('website'), and scope ('starting from the given URL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'scrape_webpage' beyond the crawling aspect.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'scrape_webpage' or other alternatives. It mentions the action but lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

crawl4ai-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

crawl4ai-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ritvij14/crawl4ai-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server