Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Recursive Flint
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk, agent interface and 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 Agents that need a cheap local model to read screenshots, photos and short video on a phone, a laptop or beside a bigger model
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 85
Watch for
No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 55
- Agent interface, 90 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 48
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
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 Recursive Flint +20
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 70
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, 7,249 characters. Tool-calling format 10, the card shows tools declared in the OpenAI tools array in a request to Transformers' server, but not how a call comes back, and names no parser for vLLM or SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one assistant turn, and the card gives a tool-calling request as a supported use. Structured output 0, Neither JSON nor JSON Schema output is documented or claimed for the model on the card. Reasoning control 10, the card passes enable_thinking per request in its examples, the template has been off by default since 19 October 2026, and the GGUF repository keeps thinking builds in their own folder. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, max_position_embeddings in the text config. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 70.
Recursive Flint 90
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository and inside both GGUFs. Tool-calling format 25, Recursive's serving README documents how tools go in, how calls come back and the flint parser. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn. Structured output 15, response_format with JSON Schema is documented. Reasoning control 0, the model decides when to reason and Recursive says there's no switch or budget. Context 10, 262,144 tokens with no position scaling.
Documentation and upkeep Recursive Flint +19
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 48
Model card 8, Intended use (image, multi-image and video understanding on device), architecture (early visual-token compression inside the vision encoder) and parameters (1B) are there. Training data 0, no description of the training data on the card. Last change 20, the last commit, on 30 October 2026, updated the card and removed an unused asset folder, eleven days before this check. Responsiveness 0, the repository has no discussions that aren't pull requests (two pull requests in all), so nobody has asked anything yet and the line reads as none answered, as settled in calibration. Version policy 10, MiniCPM-V 4.5 and 4.6 stay in their own repositories and the GitHub README dates each release. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the thinking switch, and no report waits without a reply, since there are no discussions. 8 + 0 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 48.
Recursive Flint 67
Model card 17 of 20, everything but languages. Training data 10, a general description of the mix with a June 2026 cut-off. Last change 20, released 13 days ago. Responsiveness 5, Recursive answered one of 31 discussions, on release day. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree with each other and the card, and no broken-file report waits.
Reach MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 95
Memory 30, OpenBMB's own IQ4_XS GGUF is 0.64 GB, 1.54 GB with the 0.90 GB vision projector, and 1.54 GB × 1.2 = 1.9 GB, which fits 16 GB with room to spare. Runtimes 25, MiniCPMV4_7ForConditionalGeneration in vLLM's registry at v0.33.0, the minicpmv4_7 model type in SGLang's minicpmv.py at v0.5.23, the minicpmv4_7 model in Transformers at v5.22.2, a MiniCPM-V 4.7 guide and conversion code in llama.cpp at b12242, and an openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b tag in OpenBMB's namespace on Ollama, read as the 35B-A3B listing's is. Builds 15, OpenBMB publishes AWQ, GPTQ and int4 safetensors builds and a GGUF repository from IQ3_XS to F16, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and as the LICENSE of OpenBMB's MiniCPM-V repository, an OSI licence. Download 10, gated is false on the main repository and on the GGUF, AWQ, GPTQ and int4 repositories, so the files download with no account or terms. Hosted 0, Hugging Face lists no inference provider for the model (an empty provider mapping on 10 November 2026), and no provider's own list was read. 30 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 95.
Recursive Flint 85
Memory 20 of 30, Recursive's MLX INT4 build is 22.6 GB, or 27.1 GB with a fifth added, which fits 32 GB, and every other 4-bit build lands in the same band. Runtimes 25 of 25, released llama.cpp (b11803), Ollama 0.40.8, LM Studio's catalogue, Transformers v5.21 and vLLM v0.33.0 run it, while SGLang has only a development image. Builds 15, MLX INT4 plus Q4_1 and NVFP4 GGUFs from Recursive. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, OpenRouter lists a free endpoint with Recursive as its provider, but it wasn't serving on 3 November 2026, with 0 per cent uptime over the last day.
Risk Recursive Flint +5
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 55
File safety 25, safetensors in the main repository and the AWQ, GPTQ and int4 builds, GGUF in the GGUF build, with no .bin, .pt, .pth or .py files in the main repository. Provenance 15, files in the openbmb organisation that OpenBMB's GitHub README links to (10), with a SHA-256 for both large files in the main repository (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or disclaimer section, and no prompt-injection guidance, instruction hierarchy or statement of trained refusals. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, nothing is added on the card, and the LICENSE in OpenBMB's GitHub repository resolved on 10 November 2026. Security programme 0, no SECURITY.md in OpenBMB/MiniCPM-V and no security.txt on openbmb.cn (both 404 on 10 November 2026), and no advisories found. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.
Recursive Flint 60
File safety 15 of 25, safetensors and GGUF only, but the card's documented BF16 route installs the wheel shipped in the repository. Provenance 15, the files are in the RecursiveSI organisation that Recursive's own engine downloads from, with a checksum on every file. Safety evaluation 0, none on the cards or in the announcement post. Agent guidance 10, the card and serving README say to enforce permissions around tool use and to strip tool tags from untrusted tool output, but there's no trained instruction hierarchy. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 5, a reporting address on the card and a private reporting route for the engine, with no public advisories yet.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 85 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 60 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 90 | Recursive Flint +20 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 48 | 67 | Recursive Flint +19 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | OpenBMB | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-30 | 2026-10-21 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 3.5/5 (4) |
How the scores have moved
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
A vision-language cousin small enough for a phone, under plain Apache 2.0, that every runtime we count can load. The projector is bigger than the language model, so plan for about 2 GB. The card says nothing about limits or training data and doesn't show how a tool call comes back.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. Released llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM and Transformers run it, while Recursive's free OpenRouter endpoint wasn't serving on 3 November 2026. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Before you call either
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-1B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, orollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b - For image input in llama.cpp add
mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the smaller 4x projector - The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in
thinking/when you want the trace - Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
- Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
- Check OpenRouter's endpoints list before calling recursive/flint-v1.0:free, since its only endpoint (Recursive, BF16) showed 0 per cent uptime over the last day on 3 November 2026
- vLLM needs v0.33.0 or later and Transformers v5.21 or later; released SGLang has no Flint model
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B or Recursive Flint?
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B and Recursive Flint score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). Recursive Flint leads on risk, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Arete-27B vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kronos vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LBS-27B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Mistral Large 4
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs occamy-1.0
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- Mistral Large 4 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Recursive Flint
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Recursive Flint vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/minicpm-v-4-7-1b-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/minicpm-v-4-7-1b.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare minicpm-v-4-7-1b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "minicpm-v-4-7-1b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key