Jet Tracker

Fleet by CNPJ (company)

jt_owner_fleet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Aircraft in the Brazilian registry linked to a company CNPJ, matched by the 8-digit company root (a branch does not hide the parent company aircraft). Each item says the role (owner = belongs to it, operator = only operates it), status, segment, lien and co-owners. An empty list is a valid answer ("no aircraft" is information).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cnpj`	Yes	CNPJ with 14 digits (with or without punctuation) or the 8-digit root. CPF (personal id) is not accepted.
`segment`	No	Optional cut: executive (business jets, turboprops, executive helicopters), geral (agricultural/training), comercial (airliners), militar.

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"
+}
```

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the matching by 8-digit root (since CNPJ can be full or root), the meaning of roles (owner vs operator), and the fact that an empty list is a valid, informative result. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't detail response structure, which is partially covered by the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and key matching logic, followed by essential behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value: purpose, matching detail, role semantics, and the empty-list caveat. No unnecessary fluff.

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 moderate complexity (with output schema and annotations), the description sufficiently covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to interpret results (roles, status, lien), and edge cases (branch matching, empty list). The output schema handles return structure, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. The high schema coverage and annotations complement the description fully.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including descriptions for cnpj (accepts full or root, not CPF) and segment (enum with meaning). The description reinforces the cnpj semantics by explaining the 8-digit root matching logic, which is not in the schema. It also adds context about the role field in the output, but not directly about parameters. Since the schema is very descriptive, the description adds marginal value beyond it, but the root-matching clarification is useful.

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 lists aircraft in the Brazilian registry linked to a company CNPJ, specifying the matching logic (8-digit root) and the role information (owner vs operator). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jt_fleet_search by focusing on company CNPJ and providing ownership/operator details.

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 explicitly explains the matching behavior (branch does not hide parent company aircraft) and notes that an empty list is a valid answer, preventing misinterpretation. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the unique scope (company CNPJ with role details) implicitly differentiates it from sibling search tools, and the behavior clarifications serve as usage guidance.

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?