Skip to main content
Glama

Model specs and operating cost

jt_model_specs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Technical specs of a catalog model (slug, family slug, slug with or without manufacturer prefix, or name; model.matchedBy says how it was resolved) plus the canonical operating cost engine: variable cost per hour, fixed cost per year, total per hour at 400 h/year, acquisition curve, with costModelVersion. Same numbers as the Jet Tracker model page and as jt_compute_tco assumptions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesSlug do catálogo (ex: embraer-phenom-300, cessna-citation-cj3).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoMachine-readable error code (INTERNAL, TIMEOUT, INVALID_ARGUMENT, NOT_FOUND, TOOL_FAILED, ACCOUNT_KEY_REQUIRED).
_metaNo
errorNo
foundNo
gatedNo
requestIdNo
retryableNo
quota_exceededNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / _meta / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "tool",
      -  "tier",
      -  "source",
      -  "asOf",
      -  "gated",
      -  "via"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "tool",
      +  "source",
      +  "asOf",
      +  "gated",
      +  "via"
      +]
  2. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it explains that matchedBy reports how the slug was resolved, exposes costModelVersion, and pins the cost figures to the Jet Tracker model page and jt_compute_tco assumptions.

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?

One dense sentence but front-loaded with the primary resource and outputs, followed by the cost detail and consistency claim. Every clause carries information, though the packing is heavy enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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?

With an output schema present, return shapes need not be enumerated, and the description still names the key distinguishing fields (matchedBy, costModelVersion). It is complete enough to call correctly; the only gap is the missing routing guidance relative to jt_model_search and jt_compute_tco.

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 description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond the schema by stating that the slug accepts a slug, family slug, slug with or without manufacturer prefix, or a name—an important input-flexibility detail the schema does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (technical specs of a catalog model) plus the bundled operating-cost outputs (variable cost/hour, fixed cost/year, total at 400 h/yr, acquisition curve). An agent can tell it apart from jt_model_search and jt_compute_tco, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings—it only claims numeric consistency with them.

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 by the content (need specs and canonical cost numbers for one model), and the mention that the numbers match jt_compute_tco assumptions hints at the relationship. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance, no statement of when to prefer jt_model_search or jt_compute_tco instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources