Jet Tracker

Brazilian aircraft history (JetFax)

jt_aircraft_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ownership/operator timeline of a Brazilian-registered aircraft by tail (matricula), the foreign origin when it was imported, and published accidents/incidents (CENIPA/NTSB/ASN). timeline[] is one item per RAB monthly snapshot where the owner and/or operator SET changed (first item is always change=first_seen, the earliest snapshot on record, not an event); dates are the photo where the change was first observed, not the exact day. foreignOrigin is only filled when the RAB recorded a previous foreign mark; country is only set (US) when an FAA deregistration record matches the mark by N-number AND serial number together (N-number alone is reused by the FAA across decades and is not proof by itself). Natural-person names may appear (public RAB data); no personal document (CPF) is ever returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`registration`	Yes	Brazilian registration, with or without hyphen, any case (PR-TBL, prtbl, PT-XYZ).

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

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"
+]

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial extra behavior: timeline items represent owner/operator changes with change=first_seen semantics, dates are observation dates not event dates, foreignOrigin is only filled on recorded foreign marks, and country=US requires an FAA match on N-number AND serial together. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense qualification clauses that each carry real meaning (timeline semantics, FAA match rule, CPF exclusion). It is long and somewhat run-on, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be spelled out, yet the description still explains the tricky semantics of timeline[], foreignOrigin, and country that the schema likely cannot convey. Combined with full annotation coverage and a 100%-documented parameter, nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents hyphen/case tolerance in detail. The description adds only the term 'matricula' as a synonym for the tail, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names the precise resource and scope: an ownership/operator timeline for a Brazilian-registered tail, plus foreign origin and published accidents/incidents. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like jt_aircraft_base (static data) or jt_registry_changes (no accident/origin narrative). An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the content described (history/timeline queries for a Brazilian tail), but the description never states when to prefer this over jt_aircraft_base, jt_registry_changes, or jt_cross_registry, nor any exclusions. It's adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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?