MCP Server Firecrawl
The MCP Server Firecrawl is an API-powered server providing multiple web data collection capabilities:
Web Scraping: Extract content from URLs with options for mobile emulation, ad blocking, content filtering, and structured data extraction in various formats (markdown, HTML, JSON).
Content Search: Perform intelligent searches with multi-language support, location-based results, and customizable result limits.
Site Crawling: Crawl websites with depth control, path filtering, rate limiting, and sitemap integration.
Site Mapping: Generate structural maps of websites with subdomain support and link analysis.
Data Extraction: Extract structured data from multiple URLs using schema validation, batch processing, and custom extraction prompts.
Supports using .env files to configure the Firecrawl API key for secure development environments.
Supports outputting scraped content in Markdown format for better readability and structure.
Provides TypeScript interfaces for the API, with examples written in TypeScript for better type safety and developer experience.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP Server Firecrawlscrape the latest blog posts from techcrunch.com and extract titles and summaries"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Firecrawl MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for web scraping, content searching, site crawling, and data extraction using the Firecrawl API.
Features
Web Scraping: Extract content from any webpage with customizable options
Mobile device emulation
Ad and popup blocking
Content filtering
Structured data extraction
Multiple output formats
Content Search: Intelligent search capabilities
Multi-language support
Location-based results
Customizable result limits
Structured output formats
Site Crawling: Advanced web crawling functionality
Depth control
Path filtering
Rate limiting
Progress tracking
Sitemap integration
Site Mapping: Generate site structure maps
Subdomain support
Search filtering
Link analysis
Visual hierarchy
Data Extraction: Extract structured data from multiple URLs
Schema validation
Batch processing
Web search enrichment
Custom extraction prompts
Related MCP server: MCP Firecrawl Server
Installation
# Global installation
npm install -g @modelcontextprotocol/mcp-server-firecrawl
# Local project installation
npm install @modelcontextprotocol/mcp-server-firecrawlQuick Start
Get your Firecrawl API key from the developer portal
Set your API key:
Unix/Linux/macOS (bash/zsh):
export FIRECRAWL_API_KEY=your-api-keyWindows (Command Prompt):
set FIRECRAWL_API_KEY=your-api-keyWindows (PowerShell):
$env:FIRECRAWL_API_KEY = "your-api-key"Alternative: Using .env file (recommended for development):
# Install dotenv npm install dotenv # Create .env file echo "FIRECRAWL_API_KEY=your-api-key" > .envThen in your code:
import dotenv from 'dotenv'; dotenv.config();Run the server:
mcp-server-firecrawl
Integration
Claude Desktop App
Add to your MCP settings:
{
"firecrawl": {
"command": "mcp-server-firecrawl",
"env": {
"FIRECRAWL_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
}
}
}Claude VSCode Extension
Add to your MCP configuration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"firecrawl": {
"command": "mcp-server-firecrawl",
"env": {
"FIRECRAWL_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
}
}
}
}Usage Examples
Web Scraping
// Basic scraping
{
name: "scrape_url",
arguments: {
url: "https://example.com",
formats: ["markdown"],
onlyMainContent: true
}
}
// Advanced extraction
{
name: "scrape_url",
arguments: {
url: "https://example.com/blog",
jsonOptions: {
prompt: "Extract article content",
schema: {
title: "string",
content: "string"
}
},
mobile: true,
blockAds: true
}
}Site Crawling
// Basic crawling
{
name: "crawl",
arguments: {
url: "https://example.com",
maxDepth: 2,
limit: 100
}
}
// Advanced crawling
{
name: "crawl",
arguments: {
url: "https://example.com",
maxDepth: 3,
includePaths: ["/blog", "/products"],
excludePaths: ["/admin"],
ignoreQueryParameters: true
}
}Site Mapping
// Generate site map
{
name: "map",
arguments: {
url: "https://example.com",
includeSubdomains: true,
limit: 1000
}
}Data Extraction
// Extract structured data
{
name: "extract",
arguments: {
urls: ["https://example.com/product1", "https://example.com/product2"],
prompt: "Extract product details",
schema: {
name: "string",
price: "number",
description: "string"
}
}
}Configuration
See configuration guide for detailed setup options.
API Documentation
See API documentation for detailed endpoint specifications.
Development
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Run tests
npm test
# Start in development mode
npm run devExamples
Check the examples directory for more usage examples:
Basic scraping: scrape.ts
Crawling and mapping: crawl-and-map.ts
Error Handling
The server implements robust error handling:
Rate limiting with exponential backoff
Automatic retries
Detailed error messages
Debug logging
Security
API key protection
Request validation
Domain allowlisting
Rate limiting
Safe error messages
Contributing
See CONTRIBUTING.md for contribution guidelines.
License
MIT License - see LICENSE for details.
Available Tools
2 toolsextractC
Extracts structured data from URLs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | URLs to extract from | |
| prompt | No | Extraction guidance prompt | |
| schema | No | Data structure schema | |
| ignoreSitemap | No | Ignore sitemap.xml during processing | |
| enableWebSearch | No | Use web search for additional data | |
| includeSubdomains | No | Include subdomains in processing |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention network requests, rate limits, authentication, error handling, or whether it is idempotent. Only states 'extracts', which is vague.
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?
Very short at 7 words, but under-specified. Lacks structure such as sections or examples. Conciseness would be appropriate if complete, but here it is insufficient.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, sibling tools, no output schema), the description is extremely incomplete. No information on return format, usage patterns, or edge cases.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No elaboration on how parameters interact.
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?
The description states the tool extracts structured data from URLs, but does not differentiate from sibling 'map'. The verb and resource are clear, but the scope is vague as 'structured data' is not defined.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'map', no prerequisites or exclusions provided. The description is insufficient for an agent to decide usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mapC
Maps a website's structure
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Base URL to map | |
| limit | No | Maximum links to return | |
| search | No | Search query for mapping | |
| timeout | No | Request timeout | |
| sitemapOnly | No | Only use sitemap.xml for mapping | |
| ignoreSitemap | No | Ignore sitemap.xml during mapping | |
| includeSubdomains | No | Include subdomains in mapping |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Maps a website's structure' with no details on whether it crawls, destructiveness, rate limits, or return format. This is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is efficient but under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It could include key details without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks essential context such as return values, process details, or limitations. It is highly incomplete.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, making it adequate but not improved.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Maps') and resource ('a website's structure'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'extract', which could lead to ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'extract'). The description lacks context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
v1.0.1- First observed
extract - First observed
map
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one extracts structured data from URLs, the other maps a website's structure. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tool names are single imperative verbs ('extract' and 'map'), following a consistent and concise naming pattern.
With only 2 tools, the server is on the lower end of acceptable scope. It covers basic functionality but feels minimal for a web crawling service.
The server provides core data extraction and site mapping, but lacks advanced features like recursive crawling or search, which are notable gaps for the domain.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Firecrawl MCP — wraps the Firecrawl API (firecrawl.dev) for web
Zenrows MCP server — Fetch, Extract, Batch, and Browser Sessions for AI coding assistants
Cloud scraping & crawling API for AI agents. Turn any URL into clean, LLM-ready markdown.
Enable language models to perform advanced AI-powered web scraping with enterprise-grade reliabili…
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseCqualityCmaintenanceBuilt as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides advanced web search, content extraction, web crawling, and scraping capabilities using the Firecrawl API.41-
- FlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceA server that provides tools to scrape websites and extract structured data from them using Firecrawl's APIs, supporting both basic website scraping in multiple formats and custom schema-based data extraction.23-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to perform advanced web scraping, crawling, searching, and data extraction through the Firecrawl API.940,139MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables web scraping, crawling, and content extraction capabilities through integration with Firecrawl.840,1392MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Msparihar/mcp-server-firecrawl'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server