Casdoor

Casdoor is an open-source, AI-first identity and access management (IAM) and MCP gateway authentication server with a web UI. Built in Go (Beego) with a React frontend, Casdoor supports OAuth 2.0, OIDC, SAML 2.0, CAS, LDAP, Kerberos/SPNEGO, WebAuthn / Passkeys, TOTP / MFA, SCIM 2.0 provisioning, social login, multi-tenant organizations, role-based access control, and an MCP Gateway plus A2A Protocol for agent-to-agent communication. The platform exposes a RESTful API documented via Swagger and ships SDKs for Go, Java, Python, Node.js, C#, C++, PHP, Ruby, JavaScript, Lua, and Haskell. Released under the Apache License 2.0.

Casdoor publishes 15 API contracts indexed on the APIs.io network, including REST API, Applications API, Authentication API, and 12 more. Tagged areas include Authentication, Authorization, Identity and Access Management, Identity, and LDAP.

The Casdoor catalog on APIs.io includes 1 Spectral governance ruleset.

Casdoor’s developer surface includes authentication, documentation, getting-started guide, GitHub presence, engineering blog, pricing, and 21 more developer resources.

🌐 Visit website 📡 Profile data on GitHub

24.0/100 emerging ▬ flat Agent 22/100 agent aware Front door AI 6/6 dominant Heartbeat 100/100 alive open core · Apache-2.0 Full breakdown ↓
scored 2026-11-06 · rubric v0.27.0 · Show this score on your site →

AccessFreemiumSelf serve⚡ Free to try

1 published contract 1 MCP Servers 22 Features 10 Use Cases

Authentication Authorization Identity and Access Management Identity LDAP MCP MFA OAuth OpenID Connect Open Source Passkeys SAML SCIM SSO WebAuthn Identity Federation

What this lets a business do 1

Business capabilities this provider's published APIs can perform, derived from its own contracts. Browse all capabilities →

Cybersecurity Management

BC-620

ApplicationsAuthenticationPermissionsRolesUsers

POST /api/login POST /api/signup POST /api/device-auth POST /api/enforce

Kin Score

Kin Score How this is scored →
scored 2026-11-06 · rubric v0.27.0

Composite quality — 24.0/100 · emerging

Contract Quality 0.0 / 16

Developer Ergonomics 5.0 / 13

Access Clarity 1.0 / 13

Operational Transparency 3.1 / 8

Contract Governance 1.1 / 8

Discoverability 3.7 / 7

Regulatory Posture 1.8 / 15

Open Source Surface 6.0 / 10

Create-or-Update Ergonomics 0.0 / 10

Agent readiness — 22/100 · agent aware

Machine-Readable Contract 18 / 18

Agentic Access Contract 10 / 10

Documented Reversibility 0 / 6

MCP Server 12 / 12

Machine-Readable Auth 10 / 10

Idempotency 0 / 9

Stable Error Semantics 0 / 8

Request/Response Examples 0 / 7

Rate-Limit Signaling 7 / 7

Typed Event Surface 0 / 6

Agent Skills 0 / 5

Well-Known Catalog 0 / 4

Consent & Bot Identity 0 / 3

A2A Agent Card 0 / 8

Dry-Run / Simulate Mode 0 / 4

Delegated User Identity 0 / 6

Protected Resource Metadata 0 / 5

Registration Without a Human 0 / 6

Agentic Commerce Well-Known Document 0 / 5

Pagination 0 / 5

Distinct Operations 3 / 3

MCP Tool Quality 6 / 6

Regulatory Posture applies to this provider. Its tags matched the Horizontal (data, software, accessibility, platform) regime, so Regulatory Posture carries 15 points of the composite. If this regime is wrong for your business, say so on your provider repo — the applicability map is public and we will correct it.

Open Source Surface applies to this provider. This product is open source and we read its repository directly, so Open Source Surface carries 10 points of the composite. It is scored from what the repository actually publishes — a security policy, a contribution guide, a release history, a code of conduct — read live from the provider rather than inferred from our own catalog pointers. This facet adds; nothing was taken away to make room for it. An open-source project is not excused from the commercial facets, because exemption would strip it of the points it does earn. If we have the wrong repository, or this product is not open source, say so on your provider repo and we will drop the facet rather than have you publish against it.

Create-or-Update Ergonomics applies to this provider. This API accepts writes, so it carries 10 points of the composite. It is scored from the published contracts themselves: whether a caller can create-or-update in one call, whether the write accepts a key the caller already holds, and whether the response says which branch ran. Without that, every write needs a search-and-branch in front of it, and the first time that check is skipped a duplicate record is created. Scored against the observed mean rather than raw — a provider at the catalog average is unchanged by this facet, not penalised by it.

The six quality facets above are damped to 65 points between them, because both conditional facets apply and carry 35 points together. That is why each facet's contribution is shown against a damped maximum: raising a quality facet moves the composite by 65% of its nominal weight, not 100%. The full arithmetic is at apis.io/rating/.

Show this score on your site.

It updates itself when the score changes. Paste this where you link to your API docs:

<a href="https://apis.io/providers/casdoor/"><img src="https://apis.io/badge/casdoor/card.svg" alt="Casdoor on APIs.io — Kin Score by API Evangelist"></a>

Other styles, a README pill and a shields.io endpoint are on the badge page.

Raise your score.

Agent readiness — checks not met, largest first (exact, from this profile):

Idempotency +9 pts — OpenAPI mutating operations declare an idempotency key — a header, a request-body property, or a named de-duplication token whose own description says so (verified); else common[].type matches /idempoten/i (documented)
Stable Error Semantics +8 pts — OpenAPI $refs a shared error schema across 4xx/5xx responses (verified), else common[].type includes ErrorCatalog / ErrorCodes / DeclineCodes
A2A Agent Card +8 pts — a2a/-a2a.yml manifest, graded on conformance.grade against A2A 1.0.0
Request/Response Examples +7 pts — share of operations carrying request/response examples; else an Examples / Code Samples link
Registration Without a Human +6 pts — a `registration_endpoint` in the served RFC 8414 / OIDC discovery document
Delegated User Identity +6 pts — a served discovery document listing authorization_code in grant_types_supported (served), else an oauth2 authorizationCode flow or openIdConnect declared in an OpenAPI (documented)

9 more unmet checks in the Agent Readiness table above.

Kin Score — facets with the most composite points still available (weight × headroom):

Contract Quality scores 0.0 — up to +25.0 composite points
Access Clarity scores 7.9 — up to +18.4 composite points
Developer Ergonomics scores 38.1 — up to +12.4 composite points

Each check links to what satisfies it. Publish the artifact, or tell us where it already lives, and the score moves on the next scoring run.

Improve this rating by publishing the missing artifacts — every area above can be raised, and the full rubric is at apis.io/rating/. Every facet and dimension name above is a link: it opens that measurement's own page — what it means, the exact checks that feed it, how the whole catalog distributes on it, and the providers at the top of it. This rating is computed from the provider profile at artifacts.apis.io/casdoor/apis.yml: open an issue on github.com/api-evangelist/casdoor to ask a question or point us at an artifact you publish. Submit an artifact on GitHub — free → Manage your own listing — the Influence plan, $499/mo →

Markets this provider is in provisional

The Kin Score Market layer reads a provider inside its market: its position, and how deep its integrations go. Depth is only comparable within a position. Provisional and unweighted: not part of the Kin Score or agent readiness.

Market	Position	Depth	Registered MCP server	Declares compatibility
OpenSSF Best Practices Badge Holders	standard	58.1	-	-

Registered MCP server and declares compatibility are report only — not weighted. Undeclared means we found nothing we can read, so there is no number: we never infer integrations.

Standards implemented 10

Standards this provider implements or carries. De facto ones are profiled and measured by the API Commons; formal ones come from the standards directory and are linked by the provider's own tags. The evidence column says how each claim was established — not that it was made.

IAM