Jet Tracker

Find a company CNPJ by name or email domain

jt_company_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Candidate Brazilian companies (CNPJ) for a free-text company name (trade name, legal name or group name; accents, case and legal suffixes such as Ltda, S.A., Participações are ignored) and/or an email or website domain, ranked by confidence (0 to 1) with matchReason[] in Portuguese. Built for leads that give a company name or a corporate email but no CNPJ. Coverage is companies linked to Brazilian aircraft (owners, operators, their partner companies), not every company in Brazil: an empty list means no known aircraft link. Each candidate carries hasAircraft; the top one carries its economic group when this account includes jt_owner_group. Personal email domains (gmail etc.) are ignored. Max 10 candidates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Company name as the lead wrote it, or a CNPJ / 8-digit root for a direct lookup. CPF is not accepted.
`uf`	No	Brazilian state (2 letters), to break ties.
`city`	No	City, to break ties.
`limit`	No	Default 5.
`domain`	No	Email or website domain, e.g. empresa.com.br (a full email or URL is also accepted).
`includeGroup`	No	Economic group of the top candidate (default true; needs access to jt_owner_group).

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / includeGroup / description

Previous value: -"Economic group of the top candidate (default true; needs the jt_owner_group plan)."New value: +"Economic group of the top candidate (default true; needs access to jt_owner_group)."

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"
+}
```

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: confidence ranking 0–1, matchReason[] in Portuguese, max 10 candidates, empty-list semantics, and the coverage boundary of the underlying dataset.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but the key facts (what it matches, coverage restriction, ranking, cap) are front-loaded and every clause carries information. Marginal density could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted.

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-value shape need not be explained, yet the description clarifies the two output-relevant fields (matchReason[], hasAircraft) and the group enrichment. For a 6-param, 0-required search tool with annotated safety, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning: normalization rules for q (accents, case, legal suffixes such as Ltda/S.A./Participações ignored), domain accepting full email/URL, and includeGroup's dependency on jt_owner_group access.

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 (candidate/find) and resource (Brazilian companies / CNPJ) and the exact input modalities accepted (free-text name, email or website domain). It also delineates itself from generic company registries by scoping coverage to companies linked to Brazilian aircraft.

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?

Explicitly names the situation it is built for ('leads that give a company name or a corporate email but no CNPJ') and states a when-not via coverage limits (an empty list means no known aircraft link) and ignored inputs (personal email domains). It stops short of routing to a named alternative sibling for the case where a CNPJ is already known.

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?