LeanrIQ

get flight

get_flight

Read-onlyIdempotent

get flight. 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seatId`	No
`taskId`	No
`assetId`	No
`flightId`	Yes
`seatName`	No
`accountId`	No
`previewId`	No
`campaignId`	No
`creativeId`	No
`templateId`	No
`advertiserId`	No
`sourceLocale`	No
`targetMarket`	No
`contentLocale`	No
`marketContext`	No
`targetMarkets`	No
`contentLocales`	No
`defaultContentLocale`	No
`marketLanguageProfile`	No
`resolvedContentLocale`	No
`languageVariantGroupId`	No
`requestedOutputLocales`	No
`supportedContentLocales`	No

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / contentLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / defaultContentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / languageVariantGroupId

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / marketContext

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "currency": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "targetMarket": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "targetMarkets": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "timeZone": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / marketLanguageProfile

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / requestedOutputLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / resolvedContentLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / sourceLocale
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / supportedContentLocales

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarket

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 160,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description repeats the read-only classification. It does add genuine context beyond annotations: the payload is internal orchestration state, and specific presentation rules (use assistantSummary, never show raw JSON, IDs only for follow-up). It stops short of describing lookup behavior, failure modes, or permissions.

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 leading "get flight" sentence is pure tautology and the rest is a chain of metadata flags and formatting directives rather than a front-loaded explanation of the tool. Information is present but poorly ordered and padded with low-value fragments.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, but with 23 undocumented parameters, nested objects, and no explanation of what is being fetched, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to understand or invoke the tool confidently.

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% across 23 parameters, and the description adds nothing about any parameter, including the required flightId. For a tool this broad (23 params, nested objects) the description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"get flight. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous." restates the name and name-adjacent metadata without ever saying what a flight is or what the tool retrieves. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_flights, get_task, or get_campaign.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives (list_flights, get_task, validate_flight, update_flight). It only addresses how to present the response, not when this tool should be selected.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?