jevcrawl vs Scrape.do

jevcrawl

Three compact, typed MCP tools return verbatim passages with source URLs, cost and stop reasons, and errors arrive as codes with instructions. The project is three days old and alpha, it depends on TypeSafe's paid Jev API, which is in early access with no free tier found, and it does not block crawls of private or local addresses.

Scrape.do

$29 for 250,000 basic credits, and 429s, 502s and most failures aren't billed. Token travels in the query string on the main API.

jevcrawl

1. Phrase goal as one specific question and start with max_pages between 10 and 30
2. Check stats.stopped_because and stats.degraded, and read uncertain before reporting that something is missing
3. Use scrape without a goal when you need a whole page, since it makes no paid Jev call and needs no key
4. Handle {"error": code, "message": ...} results, for example auth_error means TYPESAFE_API_KEY is missing or rejected
5. Pages in stats.needs_js_urls were not read. Tell the user rather than guessing their content

Scrape.do

1. Start with the default data centre request (1 credit). Add super=true or render=true only after a block, since they cost 10 and 5
2. Pass output=markdown to get LLM-ready text instead of raw HTML
3. Read Scrape.do-Request-Cost from the response headers. Some domains cost 10 to 200 credits whatever you pass
4. Treat a 429 as too many concurrent requests and wait for one to finish
5. Keep URLs with token= out of logs and shared traces