LeanrIQ

list flights

list_flights

Read-onlyIdempotent

list flights. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`seatId`	No
`status`	No
`seatName`	No
`accountId`	No
`campaignId`	No
`creativeId`	No
`advertiserId`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`assistantSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, returned JSON is internal orchestration state, and explicit rules about not exposing raw JSON. These are valuable non-obvious traits that help the agent handle output appropriately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably structured but somewhat lengthy, with nine sentences mixing purpose, classification, and generic assistant behavior. It front-loads the purpose but includes redundant classification (read-only) already in annotations, making it less concise than ideal.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional params and an output schema, the description lacks crucial context: what a flight is, what filters can be applied, how pagination works, and any caveats about data scope. The response-formatting guidance is helpful but does not compensate for missing parameter/return semantics.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters (limit, cursor, seatId, status, etc.). An agent cannot infer what each filter means or how to use pagination, making correct invocation very difficult.

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 'list flights' with a distinct verb and resource, distinguishing it from singular 'get_flight' and other list tools. It does not elaborate on what a flight is or what subset is returned, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_flight or list_campaigns. It includes response instructions (e.g., 'Use assistantSummary first') but no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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

All LeanrIQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is dominated by deprecated aliases (leanriq_build_ad, leanriq_create_brief, etc.) that duplicate canonical tools exactly, and multiple high-level builders (build_ad, build_campaign_creative_set, leanriq_campaign_builder, launch_creative_campaign) overlap in purpose. An agent would struggle to pick the intended tool without inspecting full descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Canonical tools follow a sensible verb_noun pattern (create_campaign, get_creative, list_flights), but the large number of 'leanriq_' prefixed aliases and special names like leanriq_campaign_builder create a mixed, inconsistent surface. The presence of both build_ad and leanriq_build_ad, or get_current_seat and leanriq_current_seat, breaks any predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

87 tools is an extreme number for any MCP server, even a broad ad-platform API. The sheer volume, including many duplicate aliases, far exceeds a well-scoped set and will overwhelm agents with unnecessary choices.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: CRUD for advertisers, campaigns, flights, creatives, versions, assets, plus trafficking, QA, preview, and publishing. Minor gaps exist, such as the missing canonical create_creative_strategy (only a deprecated alias references it) and no direct update_creative, but the domain is functionally complete.

Resources

Need Help?