Access Control
Providers using this tag (80)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 22 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 19 Limited public surface area
Emerging 15 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 14 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (72)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 22 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 11 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 11 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (46)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Access Control” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 76 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Access Control, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 36.2 | 23.2 | +13 | 76 |
| Contract Quality | 30.2 | 17.6 | +12.6 | 76 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.9 | 13.7 | +8.2 | 76 |
| Access Clarity | 34.2 | 26.5 | +7.7 | 76 |
| Discoverability | 63.4 | 58.1 | +5.3 | 76 |
| Contract Governance | 11 | 6.3 | +4.7 | 76 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 18% | 14% | +4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 17% | 12% | +5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 11% | +6 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 25% | 14% | +11 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 Rhombus Systems 63.4
- 2 Inrupt 61
- 3 Amazon Lake Formation 60.4
- 4 Allegion 59.8
- 5 ALTR 58.6
- 6 C1 55.6
- 7 Lakekeeper 55.3
- 8 KISI 54.8
- 9 Amazon IAM Access Analyzer 54.5
- 10 Amazon IAM Identity Center 54.2
- 1 Rhombus Systems 65.1
- 2 Cobot 58
- 3 Clawvisor 55.8
- 4 Cakewalk 50.9
- 5 ALTR 47.9
- 6 Whop 47.4
- 7 Inrupt 46.7
- 8 Sign In Enterprise 44.8
- 9 Lakekeeper 42.6
- 10 ADT 41
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.