LeanrIQ

validate flight

validate_flight

Read-onlyIdempotent

validate 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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint, so repeating "Classification: read-only" adds nothing. However, the description does add real behavioral context beyond the structured fields: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, and that the returned JSON is internal orchestration state that should be summarized via assistantSummary rather than shown raw.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded, but the opening restatement of the name is waste and the bulk is generic response-formatting boilerplate that could apply to any tool. Structure is fine; the content is not evenly earning its place.

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 values need not be explained, but for a 23-parameter tool with nested objects the description supplies no parameter guidance and no usage context. What remains is output-display policy, leaving the agent under-informed about how to call it correctly.

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?

23 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, with a nested marketContext/targetMarkets structure, and the description explains none of them. The single generic reference to "IDs" does not compensate for the coverage gap, so an agent gets no help distinguishing flightId from seatId, assetId, campaignId, etc.

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?

"validate flight" merely restates the tool name and title; it never says what validation actually checks or what a valid vs invalid flight means. Among siblings (get_flight, create_flight, update_flight, retraffick_flight, delete_flight) there is no distinguishing detail. This is effectively a tautology.

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?

Nothing states when to invoke validate_flight versus its many flight-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only 'when' content ("when responding to the user") concerns output formatting, not 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

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?