Jet Tracker

Airport ramp pulse (arrivals, time on the ground, fuel estimate)

jt_ramp

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ramp pulse of one airport (ICAO): who lands there and how long they stay. Returns the airport name and city, a summary (arrivals and distinct aircraft in 30 days, median hours on the ground, overnights, long stays, aircraft on the ramp now, split by airplane and helicopter, weekly series, top models, top origin airports, state ranking), the weekday-by-hour heat map, an estimate of fuel uplift, the count of maintenance-like stays, and the list of arrivals. Each arrival: registration, model, operator (company name and CNPJ only, never an individual), origin, next destination, hours on the ground, status (saiu, sem_dado, no_patio), category, turbine, next leg duration, estimated fuel liters of the next leg, and whether the airport is the aircraft base. Pro also returns the loyal customers (aircraft that came back most in 90 days). Window: last 30 days on Starter, up to 365 on Pro; days can only shorten it. Default 25 arrivals, max 200; paginate with nextCursor.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "icao": "<icao>"
    },
    "name": "jt_ramp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Shorten the arrivals window (it never exceeds the plan window).
`icao`	Yes	Airport ICAO code, e.g. SBMT.
`limit`	No	Default 25.
`cursor`	No	nextCursor from a previous page.

Output 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.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: plan-gated window (30 days Starter vs up to 365 on Pro), a privacy guarantee (operator returned as company name and CNPJ only, never an individual), plan-dependent output (Pro adds loyal customers), and pagination. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so this adds substantive context rather than repeating it. It stops short of rate limits or error conditions.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the long single run-on enumeration of every returned field is heavy and largely redundant given that an output schema exists. Sentences are dense with parenthetical lists that could be trimmed without losing callable information.

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?

For a one-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the important unknowns: plan-based window, pagination, default and max limits, and privacy handling of operator data. Remaining gaps (no mention of invalid-ICAO handling or window semantics for aircraft currently on the ramp) are minor.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the "days can only shorten the window" constraint. The description reinforces the plan-window relationship and pagination but adds little syntax or meaning the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ("Ramp pulse of one airport (ICAO): who lands there and how long they stay") and scopes it to a single airport, so an agent immediately knows this is an airport-level arrivals/dwell report. It never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. jt_airport_traffic or jt_ground_events), so the distinguishing-from-siblings bar for a 5 is not met.

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 scoping constraint (single ICAO, plan-based window, pagination via nextCursor), and the days/limit behavior is spelled out operationally. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over the other airport- or aircraft-oriented siblings, nor any stated exclusions.

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?