LeanrIQ

retraffick flight

retraffick_flight

Idempotent

retraffick flight. Classification: publishes externally. Execution: durable. Task support: optional. Mutation modes: validate_only, preview_only, execute. Partial failure policy: completed_items_not_rolled_back. 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. If idempotencyKey is omitted on a mutation, the MCP layer derives a deterministic retry key from the tool and business arguments so an accidental identical replay cannot create duplicate work. For a mutation when more than one seat is authorised, seatId or seatName must be supplied on that exact tool call; a remembered or previously selected seat is not sufficient for a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No
`dryRun`	No
`seatId`	No
`flightId`	Yes
`seatName`	No
`accountId`	Yes
`approvalId`	No
`creativeId`	No
`idempotencyKey`	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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it publishes externally, executes durably, supports validate_only/preview_only/execute modes, has a partial failure policy, derives idempotency keys, and requires explicit seat selection on writes. This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true) and enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and execution semantics.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is unnecessarily verbose and contains generic response-handling instructions ('Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') that are unrelated to this tool's purpose. This extraneous content dilutes the tool-specific information and violates conciseness principles.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the core domain action (retrafficking a flight) or the meaning of most parameters. It focuses on operational metadata (durability, partial failures) and generic response formatting, leaving a critical gap in understanding what the tool actually does and when it should be invoked.

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

Parameters2/5

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 for undocumented parameters. It does explain idempotencyKey and seatId/seatName behavior, but accountId, flightId, force, dryRun, approvalId, and creativeId are left undefined. The mutation modes mentioned in the description only loosely map to dryRun/force, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'retraffick flight.' which merely restates the tool name/title without explaining what retrafficking a flight entails. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like traffick_flight or update_flight, providing no explicit verb+resource definition.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use retraffick_flight versus alternative tools. The description mentions mutation modes and seat requirements, but these are operational constraints rather than decision criteria for tool selection.

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?