Jet Tracker

Brazilian aircraft by registration

jt_aircraft_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full profile of a Brazilian-registered aircraft by its registration mark (matricula: PR-XXX, PT-XXX, PP-XXX, PS-XXX): RAB status, model, year, owner set (names + CNPJs + Receita Federal record with city, CNAE, size, contact and company partners/QSA), operator, owner state (base.uf), lien (gravame), airworthiness (CVA/CA validity), flight activity (ADS-B/FR24), market presence (listings) and a published value reference by vintage (confidence = vintage or model_range). The RAB has no aircraft base: base.uf is the registered state of the owner; the owner city is in owner.rfb.municipio.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	compact (default): QSA limited to decision makers (qsaTotal tells the full count) and operator.rfb collapsed when it is the same company as the owner. full: everything.
`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"
+]

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: it explains what 'base.uf' actually means (registered state of the owner, not an aircraft base) and where the owner city lives, which prevents a real misinterpretation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence enumerating many returned fields that the output schema already covers. It is dense rather than wasteful, yet part of the enumeration is redundant given a structured output schema.

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?

With an output schema present the return-field list is optional, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to add the domain caveat it does provide. Nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing would push it higher.

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 description coverage is 100%, documenting both 'registration' (format, case, hyphen) and 'detail' (compact vs full behavior). The description repeats registration prefixes but adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The field enumeration describes return values, not inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full profile of a Brazilian-registered aircraft by its registration mark') and immediately distinguishes itself from the US sibling jt_us_aircraft_lookup by scoping to Brazilian registrations with example prefixes. An agent can pick this over the batch or US variant without opening a 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?

The lookup-by-registration usage is implied clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of near siblings like jt_aircraft_lookup_batch or jt_us_aircraft_lookup. 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?