Access Control
Access ControlAccess controlaccess-control
Providers using this tag (78)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 23 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 12 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (77)
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 9 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 22 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 23 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 16 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (47)
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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 74 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 32.7 | 19.8 | +12.9 | 74 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 36 | 23.4 | +12.6 | 74 |
| Operational Transparency | 22.1 | 14 | +8.1 | 74 |
| Access Clarity | 34.4 | 26.5 | +7.9 | 74 |
| Discoverability | 65.8 | 61.2 | +4.6 | 74 |
| Contract Governance | 10.9 | 6.4 | +4.5 | 74 |
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) | 16% | 10% | +6 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 19% | 13% | +6 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 11% | +6 |
| Security | 96% | 97% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 23% | 14% | +9 |
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 Inrupt 65.6
- 2 Rhombus Systems 62.4
- 3 Amazon Lake Formation 59.4
- 4 Allegion 58.9
- 5 Amazon IAM Access Analyzer 57.5
- 6 ALTR 56.9
- 7 Cobot 55.9
- 8 Lakekeeper 54.6
- 9 C1 53.5
- 10 Amazon IAM Identity Center 52.6
- 1 Rhombus Systems 65.1
- 2 Clawvisor 52.2
- 3 ALTR 47.9
- 4 Cobot 46.9
- 5 Inrupt 46.7
- 6 Sign In Enterprise 44.8
- 7 Lakekeeper 42.6
- 8 ButterflyMX 36.9
- 9 Door 36.5
- 10 Amazon IAM Access Analyzer 36.3
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.