Jet Tracker

Registry changes in a period (RAB changelog)

jt_registry_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Changes in the Brazilian REGISTRY (RAB) between two dates, not airport movements: entry (new registration), exit (cancelled), owner_change, operator_change, status_change. Read from the RAB changelog kept by Jet Tracker since 2026-02-03. Filters (type, model, base state uf, RBAC, segment; default executive) are applied in the database: total is the exact count for the filter in the period, found:false means zero in the whole period, and truncated only means there are more pages (nextCursor). Max 200 per call. Each row carries sameAirframeAs (other live registrations of the same serial + model: three reservations for one airframe are one aircraft, count once). A registry change is NOT a sale (see the caveat field). Aircraft arriving at or leaving an airport are not registry changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	End date, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive). Default: today.
`uf`	No	Base state (UF).
`from`	Yes	Start date, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive).
`rbac`	No	91 private, 91k shared/fractional, 135 air taxi, 121 airline, 137 agricultural.
`type`	No	Only one kind of change: entry (new registration), exit (cancelled), owner_change, operator_change or status_change.
`limit`	No	Default 50.
`model`	No	Catalog slug, family slug or free text.
`cursor`	No	nextCursor from a previous page.
`segment`	No	Default executive.

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

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: filters are applied in the database, total is the exact filtered count, found:false means zero in the period, truncated indicates more pages, and each row carries sameAirframeAs to explain deduplication. Max 200 per call and the changelog start date (2026-02-03) are also disclosed. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 a single dense paragraph where every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, then efficiently covers provenance, filtering behavior, pagination, and deduplication semantics. There is no filler, repetition, or vague phrasing.

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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical operational behavior: what counts as a registry change, what does not, how filters affect totals, how pagination works, how to interpret found:false/truncated, and how airframe deduplication works. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be re-explained. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining how filters (type, model, uf, rbac, segment) combine with database-side filtering, and by clarifying pagination semantics (found, truncated, nextCursor, max 200). It also defines the meaning of sameAirframeAs, which directly affects how results should be interpreted. This meaningfully complements the schema rather than merely restating it.

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 identifies a specific resource (Brazilian REGISTRY/RAB changelog) and a precise operation: retrieving registration changes between two dates. It enumerates exactly which change types are included (entry, exit, owner_change, operator_change, status_change) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from airport movements. This makes its purpose unambiguous even among many sibling tools.

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?

The description provides strong when-not guidance: 'not airport movements', 'Aircraft arriving at or leaving an airport are not registry changes', and 'A registry change is NOT a sale'. It clearly states that this tool is for registration-status changes rather than operational movements. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool to use for airport movements or sales, so it stops just short of the most explicit routing 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?