remoet

Search Companies

search_listings

Read-only

Search companies on Remoet, or list the user's starred companies (starred: true). Returns a summary per result. Use get_listing with a slug for full detail (description, perks, URLs). Job boards and aggregators are excluded; talent networks that post direct roles (e.g. Toptal) appear as companies.

CRITICAL, star quality: only star companies whose tech stack OVERLAPS the user's skills (a JavaScript dev should not star a Go/Rust-only shop). Stars are the user's job-feed noise filter, so an irrelevant star pollutes their feed with jobs they can't use. Judge overlap by each result's matchedTechStack: the technologies from your techStack filter that the company actually uses, checked against its FULL stack (not the capped preview), so do NOT skip a company just because the visible preview omits the user's skills. An empty matchedTechStack means the result matched on text, not tags. techStackCount is the company's true tag total; the full stack unlocks on starring. techStack matches AT LEAST ONE filtered technology by default; set techStackMatch:"all" to require every one.

Typical flow: read get_profile for the user's stack and seniority, search filtered by their real technologies (and experienceLevel when seniority matters), then star the genuine fits. Use starred: true to audit existing stars (pass the user's techStack to see matchedTechStack per starred company and flag zero-overlap stars). If the user's interests aren't clear, ask before searching.

Example: search_listings({ searchQuery: "payments", techStack: ["TypeScript", "React"], experienceLevel: ["mid"] }).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting from 1 (default: 1)
`sortBy`	No	Sort results by: stars (most popular), jobCount (most active hiring), or name (alphabetical). Default: relevance when searching/filtering, stars when browsing
`starred`	No	Set true to list the user's STARRED companies instead of searching the full catalog. In this mode searchQuery/experienceLevel/sort/pagination are ignored; pass techStack to get a matchedTechStack per starred company for auditing stack fit.
`pageSize`	No	Results per page, max 100 (default: 20)
`techStack`	No	Filter by technologies (e.g. ["React", "Node.js", "TypeScript"]). Each result's matchedTechStack shows which matched. Technologies are auto-normalized.
`searchQuery`	No	Search keyword: matches company name, description, and about text
`techStackMatch`	No	How techStack combines: "any" (default, at least one technology) or "all" (every technology required; use for must-have stacks)
`experienceLevel`	No	Only companies with at least one open role at any of these seniorities (e.g. ["junior"] for entry-level-friendly companies). Each result's experienceLevels field shows its per-seniority role counts; a 0 can also mean seniority was not detected for those roles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / page / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```
- changedInput schema / properties / pageSize / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / searchQuery / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / techStack / items / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds crucial context: exclusions, the star-quality rule for filtering noise, and the 'matchedTechStack' semantics that are not in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination details beyond schema (though schema covers pagination), so a slight gap remains.

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?

The description is thorough but somewhat verbose, with extensive detail on star quality and matchedTechStack that could be trimmed without loss. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, but the star-quality section adds redundancy. Still, it is structured with an example for clarity.

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?

Considering the complexity of 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key subtleties: how to audit stars, the meaning of matchedTechStack, and the typical flow. It compensates for lack of output schema by explaining the result summary fields (matchedTechStack, experienceLevels). Complete for effective use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the interplay of techStack and matchedTechStack, the meaning of empty matchedTechStack, and the effect of starred:true on parameter handling. It goes beyond just restating schema definitions, earning a 4.

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 'Search companies on Remoet' and differentiates from siblings like search_jobs and get_listing, but it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings in text. The purpose is specific and actionable, yet it could more directly distinguish itself from search_jobs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('search filtered by their real technologies', 'Use starred: true to audit existing stars') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Job boards and aggregators are excluded'), and names the alternative (get_listing) for specific needs. This is exemplary.

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

All remoet 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?