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 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows it's safe. The description adds valuable behavioral details: data source (ADS-B/FR24), partial coverage (explicitly noted), definition of nights, overnightEvents, relation categories, ordering logic, and pagination. It doesn't contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of what the call will return and its limitations.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that packs many details (data source, metrics, ordering, pagination, coverage caveat, differentiation). While every sentence carries useful information, the structure is not front-loaded beyond the opening question, and the dense phrasing could be improved with bullet points or clearer segmentation. It's acceptable but not a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description covers all essential aspects: data source, coverage limitations, metric definitions, ordering, pagination, and the conceptual scope. The only minor gap is that it references 'the caveat' but doesn't fully explain the caveat's content within the description. Otherwise it's thorough enough for an agent to know how to call and interpret results.

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% – every parameter has a clear description. The tool description doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already gives (e.g., date ranges, ICAO format, limit max). The description mentions defaults and max but these are also in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a precise verb-resource pair: 'Which aircraft arrived at or departed from an airport (ICAO) in a period'. It then enumerates the exact metrics (arrivals, departures, nights, relation, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with lookup tools by saying it answers 'who flies to my region' not 'who is registered in my city'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools like jt_aircraft_lookup or jt_owner_fleet.

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?

The description provides concrete usage context: default period, max range, ordering, pagination, and a coverage caveat. It indirectly differentiates from alternatives by stating what question it answers, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools or list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?