Jet Tracker

Runway feasibility for a model

jt_runway_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Can this model operate at this airport? Compares the model takeoff/landing distances with the runway of the airport (ICAO, city or name). verdict is the overall answer: ok, marginal, insufficient, unknown, or conditional (fits a private RBAC 91 flight but NOT an RBAC 135 air-taxi operation with the 60% landing factor). verdictByRegime gives private, taxi135Dry and taxi135Wet separately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Modelo: slug do catálogo (ex: phenom-300), slug com fabricante (embraer-phenom-300) ou o nome ("Phenom 300"). A resposta diz em modelSlug qual modelo foi usado.
`airportQuery`	Yes	ICAO ou cidade/nome do aeroporto.

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"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Previous value: -"Slug do modelo (ex: embraer-phenom-300). Use search_aircraft_catalog se não souber."New value: +"Modelo: slug do catálogo (ex: phenom-300), slug com fabricante (embraer-phenom-300) ou o nome (\"Phenom 300\"). A resposta diz em modelSlug qual modelo foi usado."

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the RBAC 91 vs RBAC 135 60% landing-factor distinction and the split verdictByRegime. It stops short of disclosing input-matching behavior or error/unknown states.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core question, then compresses distance comparison, verdict values, and regime breakdown into a short block. Slightly dense with output-enum detail, but no filler sentences.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it usefully explains what verdict values mean. For a two-param, read-only feasibility check, the agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 both slug and airportQuery are already documented in the schema, including the ICAO/city/name acceptance. The description restates that airportQuery can be 'ICAO, city or name' but adds no format or matching guidance beyond the schema.

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 opens with a precise question ('Can this model operate at this airport?') and then states the actual operation: comparing model takeoff/landing distances against the airport runway. No sibling tool in the list performs runway feasibility, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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 stated question frames the use case clearly, and the verdict enumeration tells the agent what situation this tool resolves (private vs air-taxi feasibility). It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of the top band.

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?