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.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

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"
+}
```

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: the 50-member cap, the meaning of each confidence tier, the aircraftTotal vs aircraftTotalConfident distinction, and a caveat that links are public-record hints rather than a legal structure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, but the long inline enumerations of basis types and confidence rules re-explain return values that the output schema already carries, bloating what could be a tighter description.

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 complex economic-group tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: member cap, confidence semantics, counter definitions, and the legal-structure caveat that sets expectations for interpreting results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so cnpj, registration and limit are already documented; the description adds only the framing that the CNPJ may be a 14-digit number or 8-digit root and the registration resolves to the first owner. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (companies linked to a CNPJ/owner forming an economic group) with the exact basis types returned, so an agent can tell this apart from jt_owner_fleet or jt_company_search without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the rationale for using this tool ('The RAB splits a group into many CNPJs... this gives the whole set in one call'), which tells the agent when this tool beats repeated single-company calls. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming a sibling alternative.

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?