mcp-cloudflare-crawl

crawl_status

Check a crawl job's status and retrieve its results, with cursor pagination and status filtering for large or partial datasets.

Instructions

Check the status and retrieve results of a crawl job.

For large result sets (>10 MB), the response includes a "cursor" value. Pass it back in the next call to paginate through results.

Args: job_id: The crawl job ID returned by crawl_start. cursor: Pagination token from a previous response (for large result sets). limit: Number of records to return per page. status_filter: Filter records by status — one of: "queued", "completed", "disallowed", "skipped", "errored", "cancelled".

Returns: { "id": "", "status": "running|completed|errored|cancelled_due_to_timeout|cancelled_due_to_limits|cancelled_by_user", "total": , "finished": , "browser_seconds_used": , "cursor": <int|null>, "records": [ { "url": "...", "status": "completed|errored|queued|disallowed|skipped|cancelled", "html": "...", # if html format requested "markdown": "...", # if markdown format requested "metadata": {"status": 200, "title": "...", "url": "..."} }, ... ] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`job_id`	Yes
`status_filter`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond structured fields: results over 10 MB return a cursor that must be passed back to paginate. It also enumerates the job-level status values (including timeout/limit cancellations), though it omits auth requirements, error behavior for unknown job_ids, and rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then pagination behavior, then Args and Returns sections — well structured and easy to scan. The large Returns block is somewhat verbose given an output schema already exists, but it is clearly delineated and each line carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it still documents pagination and all parameters completely for a 4-param tool. The only meaningful omissions are failure modes (invalid/expired job_id, what an errored job returns) and any permission requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 entirely, and it does: job_id's origin, cursor's role as a pagination token from a prior response, limit as records-per-page, and status_filter's full closed set of six values. This is exactly the meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 ('Check the status and retrieve results of a crawl job') that an agent can act on immediately. It references crawl_start as the source of job_id, which gives partial routing help, but it does not distinguish itself from crawl_and_wait or crawl_list, which also relate to crawl jobs.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: job_id comes 'from crawl_start', so the tool is meant to be called after starting a job, and the cursor paragraph explains how to continue paging. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. versus crawl_and_wait) and no exclusions or prerequisites such as job lifetime or auth.

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

Deploy Server