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.

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 declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the conditional verdict for RBAC 91 vs 135 operations and the per-regime breakdown (private, taxi135Dry, taxi135Wet), which an agent would not derive from schema or annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose as a question and then enumerating the verdict outcomes. Each sentence contributes new information about scope or output, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and safe annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and output semantics: the verdict scale, conditional RBAC distinction, and per-regime breakdown. It also clarifies input flexibility (model slug/name, airport ICAO/name), leaving no obvious gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters (slug and airportQuery) have full descriptions in the input schema, covering accepted formats (slug vs. name; ICAO vs. city). The tool description repeats some of this ('ICAO, city or name') but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema's own documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear question ('Can this model operate at this airport?') and specifies the exact comparison of takeoff/landing distances against runway data. It names the inputs (model and airport query) and the output verdict categories, clearly distinguishing this specialized feasibility tool from sibling lookup tools like jt_airport_lookup or jt_model_specs.

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?

The description explains what the tool computes and the meaning of the verdict values, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you need runway specifications alone, use jt_airport_lookup). Usage context is implied rather than directed, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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?