Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
gpt-oss-120b scores 70.2 (BB) 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
gpt-oss-120b BB
Best for Agents on one 80 GB GPU or a 128 GB unified machine that want an Apache 2.0 reasoning model with wide runtime support
Ahead on
- Reach, 75 against 60
- Risk, 95 against 45
- Agent interface, 90 against 60
Also in its favour
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
Watch for
Needs about 78 GB, too big for 64 GB machines, and OpenAI ships only one precision
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 45
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.
Risk gpt-oss-120b +50
gpt-oss-120b 95
File safety earns 25, safetensors only, with metal/model.bin a raw format and not pickle, and nothing from the repository runs on load. Provenance earns 15, files in OpenAI's linked organisation with a hash for every file. Safety evaluation earns 20, published results with SecureBio as an outside evaluator. Agent guidance earns 15 for the trained instruction hierarchy with prompt-injection results. Licence risk keeps all 15. The security programme earns 5 for OpenAI's Bugcrowd programme and disclosure policy, and the advisories half scores 0 because GitHub couldn't be checked, not because it was found missing.
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 gpt-oss-120b +30
gpt-oss-120b 90
The chat template earns 20, a Jinja file in the repository. The tool-calling format earns 25, since OpenAI documents declarations and returned calls in harmony and tells vLLM users to parse with openai-harmony. Trained tool calling earns 10, because each call stops generation, so calls come one at a time. Structured output earns 15 for the documented Response Formats section with a JSON Schema. Reasoning control earns 10, three effort levels per request with the reasoning on the analysis channel. Context earns 10 for 131,072 trained 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.
Reach gpt-oss-120b +15
gpt-oss-120b 75
Memory earns 10, because the smallest 4-bit build, Ollama's 65 GB gpt-oss:120b, needs about 78 GB with the fifth added, which fits the reference machine but not 64 GB. Runtimes earn the full 25 from Transformers, vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp and Ollama. Builds earn 10, since OpenAI ships one precision, MXFP4. Terms earn 15 for Apache 2.0 with a policy that asks only for lawful use. Download earns 10, with no gate or account. Hosted earns 5, since 11 inference providers serve it on Hugging Face even though OpenAI's own API doesn't.
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 +11
gpt-oss-120b 45
The model card earns 20, with all seven items in OpenAI's arXiv card. Training data earns 10, a general description with a cut-off. Last change earns 5, since the last change to code that runs the model was the Metal reference on 1 November 2025, a year before this check, and the files date from August 2025. It drops to 0 after 1 November 2026 unless the files, template or reference code change. Responsiveness earns 0, with no OpenAI reply in the 40 latest discussions. Version policy earns 5 as a first release. File health earns 5, the files agree but template and tokenizer reports wait without a reply.
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.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | gpt-oss-120b | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 75 | 60 | gpt-oss-120b +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 95 | 45 | gpt-oss-120b +50 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 90 | 60 | gpt-oss-120b +30 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 45 | 56 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | BB 70.2/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | gpt-oss-120b | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | OpenAI | 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 | 2025-08-26 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
gpt-oss-120b
A reasoning and agent cousin that runs in most runtimes under Apache 2.0 with published safety work. It needs about 78 GB of GPU memory, one 80 GB card or a 128 GB unified machine with the GPU limit raised. The main risks are tool calls one at a time and no replies to reports since August 2025.
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
gpt-oss-120b
- Start it with
ollama run gpt-oss:120bon the reference machine, the build that fits - On the Strix Halo machine raise the GPU memory limit first with
amd-ttm --set 100, since the default of about 62.8 GiB is below the 78 GB it needs - With vLLM use
vllm serve openai/gpt-oss-120b --tool-call-parser openai --enable-auto-tool-choiceper vLLM's recipe, or parse raw output with openai-harmony - Always use the harmony format through the chat template or openai-harmony, the card says it won't work correctly otherwise
- Set
Reasoning: lowin the system message for short tasks, medium is the default - Pass the reasoning back after a tool call until the final answer, and keep the analysis channel away from end users
- Expect one tool call per turn and loop, don't wait for parallel calls
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, gpt-oss-120b or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
gpt-oss-120b scores 70.2 (BB) 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 gpt-oss-120b or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs gpt-oss-120b
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs gpt-oss-120b
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs gpt-oss-120b
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs gpt-oss-120b
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs gpt-oss-20b
- gpt-oss-120b vs Granite 4.2 30B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Granite 4.2 3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Granite 4.2 8B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy3
- gpt-oss-120b vs Inkling
- gpt-oss-120b vs Inkling-Small
- gpt-oss-120b vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kimi K3
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kolibri-1
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kronos
- gpt-oss-120b vs Laguna M.1
- gpt-oss-120b vs Laguna S 2.1
- gpt-oss-120b vs Laguna XS 2.1
- gpt-oss-120b vs LBS-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-VL-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM5-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniMax-M2.5
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniMax-M2.7
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- gpt-oss-120b vs Mistral Large 4
- gpt-oss-120b vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- gpt-oss-120b vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- gpt-oss-120b vs occamy-1.0
- gpt-oss-120b vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-4B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-9B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.6-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.8-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ripple-65B Preview
- gpt-oss-120b vs SmolLM3-3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- gpt-oss-120b vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- gpt-oss-120b vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- 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/gpt-oss-120b-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/gpt-oss-120b.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare gpt-oss-120b ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "gpt-oss-120b", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key