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

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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, and the fact that the returned JSON is internal orchestration state that should not be surfaced raw. That last point materially constrains how an agent should handle the output, which annotations do not express.

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 token budget is spent on presentation boilerplate for the assistant rather than on tool semantics. The first sentence is a name restatement, and the remainder is response-style instruction that crowds out the filtering and pagination information an agent actually needs to call the tool.

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?

With 21 undocumented parameters, nested objects, and no field-level descriptions, the definition is materially incomplete for invocation. The output schema's existence excuses it from explaining return values, but that does not cover the absent filtering, scoping, and pagination semantics the agent must know before calling.

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 21 parameters, including nested objects like marketContext and marketLanguageProfile, yet the description mentions no parameter at all. Nothing explains that seatId/accountId/campaignId narrow the listing or that limit/cursor paginate, leaving the agent to guess entirely from property names.

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?

"list flights" is a direct restatement of the tool name and title, giving no verb+resource specificity beyond what the identifier already conveys. It never states what a flight is here, what the listing is scoped to, or how it differs from get_flight or the many other list_* siblings.

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 response-formatting guidance (use assistantSummary first, don't show raw JSON) but says nothing about when to call this tool versus get_flight, list_campaigns, or list_tasks. There is no filtering context, no prerequisite, and no exclusion condition to route the agent.

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?