Field-by-field comparison

Compare the evidence before choosing an MCP.

Each signal stays separate, missing facts remain visible, and the column order follows your selection.

MCPs in this comparison

Uncheck an MCP to remove it. Comparing two or three keeps each signal in its own row.

Open canonical comparison link

Comparable alternatives

Shown only when capability or industry context overlaps.

Side-by-side MCP evidence comparison
Evidence fieldFirecrawl MCPMCP100 RecommendedPlaywright MCPMCP100 Recommended
Task fit
Best for
  • Scraping and extracting public web pages
  • Search, crawl, map, batch, and research workflows
  • Teams already using Firecrawl API limits and governance
  • Inspecting and testing web interfaces through accessibility snapshots
  • Reproducing browser journeys in a dedicated test profile
Not ideal for
  • Simple known-page fetches that do not justify a paid API
  • Sites whose terms or access controls prohibit automated collection
  • Workflows requiring guaranteed freshness or extraction accuracy
  • API-only testing that does not need a browser
  • Unattended access to a personal browsing profile
Avoid when
  • You cannot govern which URLs the agent may access
  • The workflow may collect personal, confidential, copyrighted, or access-controlled content without review
  • Unexpected API-credit consumption is unacceptable
  • The workflow cannot permit an agent to navigate, type, click, upload files, or read page content
  • You cannot isolate sensitive authenticated sessions from the agent-controlled browser
Provenance
Provenance details

First-party MCP

Firecrawl · Publisher source ↗

First-party MCP

Microsoft · Publisher source ↗

Maintenance
Maintenance details

Repo: Sep 24, 2026

Package: Sep 21, 2026

Repo: Sep 18, 2026

Package: Sep 21, 2026

Popularity evidence
GitHub stars

7,507

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:47.690000Z

37,525

GitHub stars · checked 2026-09-24T04:14:16.452000Z

Package downloads / 30 days

126,701

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-24T04:17:59.638000Z

23,800,747

package downloads / 30 days · checked 2026-09-24T04:17:39.045000Z

External adoption evidence
  • npm: package downloads: 412,488Exact attributable signal.npm: package downloads · Rolling 30 days · checked 2026-08-14T18:46:26.000ZEvidence source ↗
Not documented
Client coverage
Client coverage details
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Claude Code✓ Local stdio
Claude Desktop✓ Local stdio
Codex✓ Local stdio
VS Code✓ Local stdio
Cursor✓ Local stdio
OpenCode✓ Local stdio
Client coverage noteLocal stdio runs on your computer. Streamable HTTP connects to a remotely hosted MCP server.
Access and data
AuthenticationCloud and local-package configurations use FIRECRAWL_API_KEY. Official docs also show hosted MCP URLs containing the key; environment-variable or protected input handling is safer than embedding the key in a URL.The server itself does not require a service account for local stdio use, but websites opened in the controlled browser may use cookies or other authenticated browser state.
CostMCP calls consume the account's standard Firecrawl API credits and rate limits. Search, crawl, batch, and agent operations can consume more resources than single-page scraping; current plan pricing applies.The first-party open-source package lists no MCP server usage fee. Normal internet, hosted-client, proxy, or third-party website costs can still apply.
PermissionsThe MCP can initiate outbound requests to user- or model-selected URLs and invoke Firecrawl scrape, search, crawl, map, extraction, batch, and research capabilities according to enabled tools and account limits.The exposed tools can navigate pages, interact with elements, enter text, upload files, inspect network activity, and optionally use additional browser capabilities.
Data handlingURLs, queries, extraction schemas, and retrieved page content are processed by the configured Firecrawl service. Cloud mode sends them to Firecrawl; self-hosted mode follows the operator's deployment and any configured model/provider dependencies.Page text, accessibility snapshots, console output, network details, uploaded paths, and browser state may be returned to the connected MCP client. Isolated mode keeps the temporary profile in memory; persistent mode stores browser state on disk.
Limitations
Tradeoffs
  • Broad scrape, crawl, search, and autonomous-agent tools are powerful but enlarge prompt-injection, compliance, and cost exposure.
  • Cloud mode is easy to configure; self-hosting adds operational burden.
  • Remote URL forms that embed an API key are convenient but can leak through configuration, logs, screenshots, or history.
  • The reviewed v2.0.0 release moved the MCP server to the Firecrawl v2 API and added Streamable HTTP.
  • A persistent profile is convenient but can retain cookies and authenticated state between sessions.
  • Origin allow/block options reduce accidental access but the publisher explicitly says they are not a security boundary.
Risk contextMain risks are prompt injection from untrusted pages, collection-policy violations, sensitive URL/query disclosure, API-key leakage, and agent-driven credit spend. Use URL allow-lists, low limits, human approval, and a dedicated low-budget key.Playwright MCP is not a security boundary. Secret replacement or masking is a convenience feature, not a security boundary. Prefer an isolated browser profile, non-sensitive test accounts, narrow destinations, minimal optional permissions, and client-side approval controls.
Evidence date
Editorial review2026-09-052026-07-24
Candidate evidence2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z2026-09-24T04:25:05.554391Z

Popularity, maintenance, fit, permissions, and client support are independent evidence fields.

Read the evidence method →