Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 61.5 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 2 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 Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback.
Ahead on
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Agent interface, 75 against 60
Watch for
510.3 GB of files and no smaller build anywhere, so it won't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine
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 48
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.
Agent interface DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +15
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 75
There's no Jinja template in the 17 October repository, only code to run, so the template line gets 10. DeepSeek documents the DSML tool format both ways and ships its own parser in encoding.py and deepseek-recipe, but names no parser in a runtime (10, read as for DeepSeek-V3.2 and V4-Flash-0731), and one block can carry several calls (20). deepseek-recipe documents JSON Schema output via response_format (15). Thinking turns off in chat mode and takes an effort budget from 1 to 100, with reasoning returned in think tags (10). The 1M context was trained in (10).
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.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 48
The cards cover architecture, parameters and context but not intended use, limitations, languages or a cut-off, so 8. Training data is a general description with no cut-off, which caps it at 5. The files changed on 16 and 17 October and DeepSeek's deepseek-recipe 0.2.0 changed the V4.1 prompt encoding on 20 October, inside 30 days (20). None of the 40 most recent questions across both repositories had a DeepSeek reply (0). Every release keeps its own repository and the update names what it replaces (10). File health loses 5 for an open, unanswered pull request saying the September template trails the encoding changes. 8 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 5 = 48.
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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +5
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 50
The weights are safetensors only, but 10 comes off because the card's way to build prompts is running encoding.py from the repository, since there's no Jinja template. The files sit in DeepSeek's own organisation with a hash for every file. Nothing is published on safety and there's no guidance for agent use, so those two lines score 0. The security programme earns 5 for the security@deepseek.com reporting address in DeepSeek's site footer, read as for DeepSeek-V3.2, with no security.txt and no public advisories. The MIT licence carries no use policy, threshold or revocation, so licence risk keeps all 15.
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.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 60 | even |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 45 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 60 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 48 | 56 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61.5/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-17 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
A large multimodal agent model with a 1M-token context, documented tool calls, JSON Schema output and a reasoning budget, under MIT. It needs about 612 GB of memory across several GPUs and runs in vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp. The main risks are prompts built from DeepSeek's code instead of a template, no published safety results and no DeepSeek replies.
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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek's reference run is its inference folder, convert.py with --model-parallel 8 --expert-dtype fp4, then torchrun --nproc-per-node 8 generate.py --ckpt-path "$SAVE_PATH" --config config.json --interactive
- In vLLM 0.32.0 the parsers are named deepseek_v41 for both --tool-call-parser and --reasoning-parser. That's vLLM's naming, DeepSeek doesn't document a vLLM command
- In llama.cpp, convert with convert_hf_to_gguf.py from b11870 or later, which added the deepseek41 architecture on 25 October 2026; no GGUF is published by DeepSeek
- Build prompts with encoding.py or pip install deepseek-recipe, not the September repository's chat_template.jinja, which an open pull request says trails the 16 October encoding
- Tool calls come back in a DSML calls block with a space before calls, invoke and parameter, unlike V4
- Set reasoning_effort to 1 to 100, or low, high or max (50, 75, 100), in thinking mode only. Default is 75
- Sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 and allow 256K or more output tokens, as the card recommends
- Without the hardware, call DeepSeek's API as deepseek-flash, which serves this exact update
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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 61.5 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling-Small
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kronos
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna M.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LBS-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Mistral Large 4
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs occamy-1.0
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- 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/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/deepseek-v4-1-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v4-1-flash ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v4-1-flash", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key