Jet Tracker

Flight history of an aircraft

jt_aircraft_flights

Read-onlyIdempotent

Tracked flights of one Brazilian registration or US N-number in a period (default last 90 days, max 365): departure, arrival, arrivalConfidence (landed, last_seen, reported, inferred, unknown), duration, plus coverage (status never_seen/active/lost, first and last tracked flight, flights on record). Newest first, max 200 per call, paginate with nextCursor. Coverage is partial and a third of Brazilian flights end at strips without ground coverage (see the caveat). US flights come from FR24 for the US business aviation fleet, without the free ADS-B destination inference.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD (default: today).
`from`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD (default: 90 days ago).
`limit`	No	Default 50.
`cursor`	No	nextCursor from a previous page.
`registration`	Yes	Brazilian registration (PR-TBL) or US N-number (N470QS).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Machine-readable error code (INTERNAL, TIMEOUT, INVALID_ARGUMENT, NOT_FOUND, TOOL_FAILED, ACCOUNT_KEY_REQUIRED).
`_meta`	No
`error`	No
`found`	No
`gated`	No
`requestId`	No
`retryable`	No
`quota_exceeded`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / registration / description

Previous value: -"Brazilian registration (PR-TBL)."New value: +"Brazilian registration (PR-TBL) or US N-number (N470QS)."

changedInput schema / properties / registration / minLength
```
Previous value: -5New value: +2
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / _meta / required

Previous value: -[
-  "tool",
-  "tier",
-  "source",
-  "asOf",
-  "gated",
-  "via"
-]New value: +[
+  "tool",
+  "source",
+  "asOf",
+  "gated",
+  "via"
+]

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / asOf / description
```
Added value: +"Alias of sourceUpdatedAt (kept for compatibility)."
```

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / generatedAt

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When this response was produced (ISO 8601).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / observedAt

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Last event actually observed in the data returned (last flight, last arrival, last listing sighting)."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / sourceUpdatedAt

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Last sync of the underlying source (RAB snapshot, registry import, listing scan). Never in the future."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / _meta / properties / validUntil

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Expiry of the fact returned, when it has one (CVA validity, period end)."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / code

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Machine-readable error code (INTERNAL, TIMEOUT, INVALID_ARGUMENT, NOT_FOUND, TOOL_FAILED, ACCOUNT_KEY_REQUIRED).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / requestId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / retryable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses coverage limits ('partial', a third of Brazilian flights end at strips without ground coverage), the data provenance split (US via FR24 for the business aviation fleet, without free ADS-B destination inference), ordering, and page caps. That is exactly the kind of reliability context an agent needs before trusting results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and scope, then the return fields, then provenance caveats. The parenthetical token lists are compact rather than wasteful, though the single-block layout makes the caveat easy to skim past.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description still adds ordering, pagination and data-source caveats. The dangling 'see the caveat' pointer references something the agent may not have, which is the one loose end.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by stating the default window (90 days) and a 365-day maximum that the schema does not encode anywhere. It does not explain the arrivalConfidence/coverage tokens as parameter-adjacent semantics, but those are return values rather than inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Tracked flights of one Brazilian registration or US N-number in a period') and enumerates what is returned. It does not name any of the many sibling tools (jt_aircraft_history, jt_movements, jt_global_fleet_stats) to disambiguate scope, so an agent must still infer whether this or jt_aircraft_history is the right call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Defaults (last 90 days, max 365, 200 per call) and the pagination pattern are supplied, which implicitly tells the agent how to call it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over jt_movements or jt_aircraft_history, and no exclusions; usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Jet Tracker 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?