Jet Tracker

US aircraft by N-number

jt_us_aircraft_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

US-registered aircraft (FAA registry) by N-number: status (here "reserve" is FAA code R, registration pending, never a mark reservation; see statusNote), model, year, airworthiness date, registrant type, registrant city/state (base.city / base.state: the FAA registrant address, not a hangar), ICAO24 hex (segment=general_aviation when the aircraft is outside the business aviation cut: piston and light general aviation, no ICAO24), plus the Jet Tracker link to Brazil: the same airframe (serial + compatible model) found in the Brazilian registry (a PR-/PT- mark reservation means the aircraft is likely being imported into Brazil). Individuals are not named.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`registration`	Yes	N-number, with or without the N (N123AB, 123AB).

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.

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful caveats beyond them: 'reserve' is FAA code R and never a mark reservation, base.city/base.state is the FAA registrant address rather than a hangar, and individuals are not named. It also clarifies when segment=general_aviation applies and what the Brazil link means, though it does not discuss not-found behavior.

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, but the description is a single dense sentence packed with semicolons and parentheticals. The caveats are useful, yet the run-on structure makes it harder to scan than a short bulleted or segmented form would be.

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?

Given one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition is largely complete: it covers the main returned fields, caveats about FAA status codes, registrant address semantics, segment behavior, privacy, and the Brazil cross-link. The remaining gap is explicit error or not-found behavior, which is minor because an output schema exists.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the input schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the accepted formats 'N123AB' and '123AB'. The description adds no additional format or parsing detail beyond what the schema provides, so this is the baseline case for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states a specific resource and lookup key: US-registered aircraft in the FAA registry by N-number. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as jt_aircraft_lookup or jt_cross_registry, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains field meanings and caveats but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as jt_aircraft_lookup for non-US aircraft or batch tools for multiple registrations, so the agent must infer routing.

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?