Jet Tracker

Companies linked to an owner (economic group)

jt_owner_group

Read-onlyIdempotent

Companies related to a CNPJ (or to the owner of a registration) that own or operate live Brazilian aircraft, with why they are linked (basis: same_root, seed_partner_company, seed_is_partner, shared_partner, same_email, same_phone, same_address, same_name_prefix), a confidence per member (high = same root, partner link or shared partner; medium = shared e-mail, or phone + address; low = only a shared address or phone, which at an airport, hangar or accounting office links unrelated companies), the shared partner names (public QSA), the Receita record, the owner role and the aircraft of each member. aircraftTotal counts every member; aircraftTotalConfident excludes low-confidence members. The RAB splits a group into many CNPJs (SPEs, farms, holdings, family companies); this gives the whole set in one call so one conversation covers all of them. Max 50 members. Links are hints from public records, not a legal structure (see the caveat).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cnpj`	No	CNPJ (14 digits) or 8-digit root of the seed company.
`limit`	No	Default 25 members.
`registration`	No	Alternatively, a registration: the group of its first owner CNPJ.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond that by detailing confidence tiers, the distinction between aircraftTotal and aircraftTotalConfident, and the caveat that links are hints from public records rather than a legal structure, including the airport/hangar/accounting-office false-positive risk.

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 long but dense and purposeful: each clause conveys distinct information such as link bases, confidence rules, shared partner data, the RAB multi-CNPJ context, the max member count, and the legal caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers supporting detail without repetition.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool, the description covers inputs, output concepts, confidence interpretation, member limits, and the legal caveat. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields; nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including CNPJ/root format, limit range, and registration alternative. The description adds group-level context and the 50-member maximum, but it does not meaningfully expand per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the resource: companies related to a CNPJ or registration that own or operate live Brazilian aircraft. It also explains why members are linked and distinguishes the tool's group-level scope from single-company lookups by emphasizing that the RAB splits a group across many CNPJs.

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?

It gives strong context for when to use it: 'this gives the whole set in one call so one conversation covers all of them,' addressing the multi-CNPJ group problem. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but the use case is clear enough.

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?