Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
Agents-A1-4B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Local agent loops (search, research, tool calls) on a laptop, a small GPU or a phone-class machine, under a plain licence
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 60
- Risk, 55 against 45
- Agent interface, 70 against 60
Watch for
The base isn't declared, and the technical report doesn't cover the 4B
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 43
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Reach Agents-A1-4B +30
Agents-A1-4B 90
Memory 30, InternScience's Q4_K_M GGUF with its vision projector is 3.4 GB and needs about 4.1 GB with the fifth added. Runtimes 20, the Qwen3.5 architecture runs in released vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp, while Ollama's and LM Studio's entries are the base's, not this model's. Builds 15, InternScience publishes FP8 and three GGUF precisions. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, one inference provider serves it and the line needs two.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +13
Agents-A1-4B 43
Model card 8, it covers intended use, parameters and context but not the architecture, limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a general description with no cut-off. Last change 10, the files went up on 14 July 2026, 112 days before 3 November 2026, and the GitHub repository's last commit is 16 July. Responsiveness 10, InternScience answered one of the three discussions, unchanged on 3 November 2026. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 5, the files agree on the essentials, but the config declares a prediction layer that isn't shipped and the template carries a dated default prompt.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
Risk Agents-A1-4B +10
Agents-A1-4B 55
File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only and nothing from the repository runs. Provenance 15, the files are in the InternScience organisation its GitHub repository links to, with a SHA-256 for every weight file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 through the chain from Qwen3.5-4B with no conditions added. Security programme 0, no policy, contact or security.txt.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Agent interface Agents-A1-4B +10
Agents-A1-4B 70
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, the card names the qwen3_coder parser but the format is only in the template. Trained tool calling 20, the card says it was trained for tool use and the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0. Reasoning control 10, the template turns thinking off per request and the card's reasoning parser returns it apart from the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Agents-A1-4B | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 60 | Agents-A1-4B +30 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 45 | Agents-A1-4B +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 60 | Agents-A1-4B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 43 | 56 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +13 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Agents-A1-4B | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | InternScience (Shanghai AI Laboratory) | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-07-14 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
Agents-A1-4B
A small agent cousin for search, research and tool-calling loops, with vision and 262,144 tokens of context. It runs in about 4 GB from InternScience's Q4_K_M GGUF, in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers or llama.cpp. The main risks are an undeclared base, no safety results or agent guidance, and a template that adds its own dated system prompt when you send none.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no safety results.
Before you call either
Agents-A1-4B
- Quickest start is
llama-server -hf InternScience/Agents-A1-4B-Q4_K_M-GGUF --jinja, about 3.4 GB with the vision projector - With vLLM use
--reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, as on the card, and add--language-model-onlyfor text-only work - Always send your own system message, or the template inserts InternScience's default prompt with the date fixed at 2026-07-14
- The card recommends temperature 0.85, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, min_p 0 and presence_penalty 1.1, and there is no generation_config.json to set them
- Thinking is on by default, send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - The config declares a multi-token prediction layer that isn't shipped, so don't turn on MTP speculative decoding
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Agents-A1-4B or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
Agents-A1-4B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Agents-A1-4B or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Apertus v1.5 8B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Apodex-1.1-mini
- Agents-A1-4B vs Arete-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs BigBang-v1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Carbon-X
- Agents-A1-4B vs Cosmos-Reason2-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Agents-A1-4B vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Agents-A1-4B vs gpt-oss-20b
- Agents-A1-4B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Granite 4.2 8B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Inkling
- Agents-A1-4B vs Inkling-Small
- Agents-A1-4B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kimi K3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kolibri-1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kronos
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna M.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs LBS-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Mistral Large 4
- Agents-A1-4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Agents-A1-4B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Agents-A1-4B vs occamy-1.0
- Agents-A1-4B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Agents-A1-4B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Agents-A1-4B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/agents-a1-4b-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/agents-a1-4b.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare agents-a1-4b ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "agents-a1-4b", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key