Jet Tracker

Aircraft that used an airport

jt_airport_traffic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Which aircraft arrived at or departed from an airport (ICAO) in a period, from tracked flights (ADS-B/FR24) kept by Jet Tracker: arrivals, departures, arrivalsInferred, nights slept there (nights = midnights elapsed between arrival and the next departure, ongoing stays count up to now; overnightEvents = number of stays that crossed at least one midnight), relation (based = hub or 4+ nights, recurring = 3+ movements, occasional), first and last seen, whether the airport is the aircraft inferred hub, plus model, owner set and RAB status. Default period: last 90 days; max 365. Ordered by nights then activity. Max 100 per call, paginate with nextCursor. Coverage is partial (see the caveat). It answers "who flies to my region", not "who is registered in my city".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD (default: today).
`from`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD (default: 90 days ago).
`icao`	Yes	Airport ICAO code, 4 letters/digits (SNBR, SBBR, SBKP). City names are not accepted.
`limit`	No	Default 25.
`cursor`	No	nextCursor from a previous page.
`segment`	No	Default executive.

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"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / icao / description

Previous value: -"Airport ICAO code (SNBR, SBBR, SBKP). Use jt_airport_lookup to resolve a city or name first."New value: +"Airport ICAO code, 4 letters/digits (SNBR, SBBR, SBKP). City names are not accepted."

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: ordering (nights then activity), a 100-per-call cap with nextCursor pagination, and an explicit partial-coverage caveat. The 'see the caveat' reference is vague since the caveat itself is not included, which keeps this from a 5.

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-loads the core answer ('Which aircraft arrived at or departed...') before the metric definitions. It is a dense block with several parenthetical clauses, but nearly every clause carries real semantic information (nights, overnightEvents, relation thresholds) that an agent needs.

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?

For a read-only analytical tool with a full output schema, the description is close to complete: it covers defaults, limits, ordering, pagination and the derived fields. The only gap is the reference to an unexplained 'caveat' about partial coverage, which the agent cannot resolve from the definition alone.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description explains derived semantics not in the schema: what 'nights', 'overnightEvents', and 'relation' (based/recurring/occasional) mean, plus the period defaults and cap. It does not clarify the segment enum, but the added derived-field definitions push it above baseline.

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 precise verb+resource: aircraft that arrived at or departed from a given ICAO airport within a period, drawn from ADS-B/FR24 tracked flights. It explicitly demarcates scope ('who flies to my region', not 'who is registered in my city'), so an agent can separate it from registry-oriented siblings like jt_aircraft_lookup or jt_us_aircraft_lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context (arrivals/departures analysis for an airport, default 90 days, max 365) and a scope exclusion that routes the agent away from registration-based tools. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative sibling or stating when-not to use it in favour of, e.g., jt_movements.

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?