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, base state, 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 base city or airport; 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.

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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description rightly focuses on additional context. It adds valuable behavioral details: the RAB has no base city or airport, the owner city is found in owner.rfb.municipio, and the value-reference confidence is based on vintage or model_range. No contradiction with 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?

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose and then a dense, relevant list of profile fields. The second sentence is a necessary caveat about the RAB's lack of a base city. It could be slightly tightened, but every clause contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's high output complexity, the description covers all major return domains and an important data caveat. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is already provided elsewhere. Nothing essential for invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the registration format with prefix examples (PR-XXX, PT-XXX, PP-XXX, PS-XXX) and the term matricula, but the schema already documents hyphen/case flexibility and the detail enum. No significant new parameter meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Full profile of a Brazilian-registered aircraft by its registration mark', naming a specific resource and lookup action. It enumerates the profile contents (RAB status, model, owner set, operator, lien, airworthiness, flight activity, market presence, value reference) and the valid registration prefixes, clearly distinguishing it from US lookup, fleet search, and batch siblings.

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 rather than explicit: the description says this is a full profile by registration mark, so an agent can infer it is for a single known Brazilian registration. However, it does not state when to prefer this over jt_aircraft_lookup_batch, jt_aircraft_base, jt_aircraft_history, or jt_us_aircraft_lookup, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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?