Skip to main content
Glama
minghsuy

ctscout

by minghsuy

Submit an async Pro deep dive (multi-signal attribution job)

ctscout_submit_deep_dive

Queue an asynchronous deep-dive job attributing a company or seed domains via CT, DNS, RDAP, homepage, and IP/ASN signals. Returns a job receipt; poll the returned job ID for results.

Instructions

Queue an asynchronous Pro deep dive on ctscout.dev: the full multi-signal attribution run (CT warehouse + DNS, RDAP, homepage, IP/ASN corroboration) executed by a batch worker, via POST /jobs. Returns a job receipt immediately, NOT results.

Asynchronous, Pro only:

  • The call returns as soon as the job is queued ({job_id, status: "queued", submitted_at}). Nothing is attributed yet.

  • Poll with ctscout_get_job using the returned job_id. Wait about 30 s before the first poll, then back off toward 5 min between polls; the batch worker picks up queued jobs every few minutes and a deep dive can take several minutes to run.

  • Requires a Pro API key. A free key gets HTTP 403 with the API's upgrade text (Pro is $49/month from https://ctscout.dev/#tiers). Quota: 20 submissions per key per day (HTTP 429 over). Submitting is not idempotent — a retry queues a second job.

Args:

  • company_name (string, optional): organization name, matched exactly as in ctscout_search_company (partial, case-insensitive; 2–200 chars).

  • seed_domain (string[], optional): known apex domains to pivot from, max 10. At least one of company_name / seed_domain is required; both may be given. Validated exactly like /scan.

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json', default 'markdown'): a receipt with polling guidance, or the raw 202 body.

Returns (on success, structuredContent follows the declared outputSchema; a failed call — 401, 403, 429, timeout — is isError with no structuredContent): { "job_id": string, // opaque; pass to ctscout_get_job "status": "queued", "submitted_at": string, "poll": "/jobs/" // informational }

What the finished result contains (read it with ctscout_get_job):

  • The deep-dive result shape (a /scan never carries it): "domains" of attributed apex domains, each with "attributed_to", an "enrichment" object (confidence_band, weight_total, matched_via, evidence, signal_health, vlm_status, vlm_override) and the underlying discovery evidence under "base"; plus "entity", "run_metadata", "source" and "signals_degraded".

  • Plus "snapshot": the warehouse date (YYYY-MM-DD) the deep dive read from. It is present on every deep-dive result because the batch worker sets it, together with "worker_version" and "signals_attempted"; a /scan answer carries its own snapshot from the API.

  • "Attributed" means the organization is what the evidence names for that domain (certificate subject, corroborated by the enrichment signals), not an ownership claim. "Candidate" means a semantic name-similarity guess that is NOT an attribution; a deep dive reports attributions with a confidence band, never bare candidates.

  • Visual brand verification (VLM) is NOT included in v1: vlm_status stays "pending" or "skipped" and never vetoes a band.

Examples:

  • Use when: "Run a full attribution deep dive on CNA Financial" -> { company_name: "CNA Financial" }

  • Use when: "Deep-dive from these seed domains" -> { seed_domain: ["cna.com", "cnasurety.com"] }

  • Don't use when: you want an answer now — ctscout_search_company / ctscout_lookup_domain are synchronous. Don't resubmit while a job is queued or running; poll it.

Corrections:

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seed_domainNoKnown apex domains of the organization to pivot from (e.g. ['gs.com']). Max 10. Give company_name, seed_domain, or both.
company_nameNoOrganization name to deep-dive, matched exactly as in ctscout_search_company. Give company_name, seed_domain, or both.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for a submission receipt with polling guidance, 'json' for the raw 202 body ({job_id, status, submitted_at, poll}).markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pollNoRelative API path to poll (informational).
job_idYesOpaque id; pass it to ctscout_get_job.
statusYes'queued' on submission.
submitted_atYesSubmission time as reported by the API.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses non-idempotency (a retry queues a second job), async behavior, Pro-key requirement, quota limits (HTTP 429), and failure modes (401, 403, 429, timeout), going well beyond the annotations.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, finished result, Examples, Corrections) and front-loads the core action before diving into details.

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?

The description covers the output schema, the meaning of the finished result, attribution semantics, VLM limitations, polling guidance, and even correction channels, leaving no significant context gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Every parameter is documented with additional detail beyond the schema: company_name matching semantics, seed_domain constraints and validation parity with /scan, and response_format behavior with the raw 202 body.

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 the specific action ('Queue an asynchronous Pro deep dive'), the resource ('multi-signal attribution job' on ctscout.dev), and contrasts it with synchronous siblings like ctscout_search_company and ctscout_lookup_domain.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool, gives concrete examples, warns against using it for immediate answers, names the synchronous alternatives, and advises not to resubmit while a job is queued or running.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.