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 the plan 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 the jt_owner_group plan).

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"
+}
```

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds extensive behavioral detail: ranking by confidence, matchReason in Portuguese, coverage limitation, hasAircraft field, conditional economic group inclusion, and ignoring personal email domains. It also notes max 10 candidates. 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 moderately long but every sentence contributes essential information: purpose, coverage scope, ranking details, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core function and then layers specific constraints. It could be slightly more compact, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (6 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (so return format is covered), the description covers all necessary aspects: input types, matching behavior, ranking, coverage constraints, and conditional outputs. It even explains the economic group dependency on a plan. No critical gaps remain for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that accents, case, and legal suffixes are ignored for the name query, and that personal email domains are ignored for the domain parameter. It also clarifies that q can be a CNPJ/8-digit root for direct lookup. This adds value, but not exhaustive elaboration on every parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns candidate Brazilian companies (CNPJ) given a company name or email/website domain, ranked by confidence. It distinguishes itself from the many aircraft-focused siblings by explicitly focusing on company identification for leads. The coverage limitation (only aircraft-linked companies) is also specified, which is a critical differentiator.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description states when to use this tool: 'Built for leads that give a company name or a corporate email but no CNPJ.' It also provides an exclusion: coverage is limited to aircraft-linked companies, so an empty list indicates no known aircraft link, implying it's not for general Brazilian company lookup. This gives clear context for choosing this tool over others.

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?