niche · 0.2 capabilitymarket actiondomainindustryschema

Accessibility

Score 18.3 / 100 33 providers +7 via APIs 17 APIs Search apis.io →

Providers using this tag (33)

Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.

Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 14 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface

APIs with this tag (16)

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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented

Companies reaching this through an API (7)

These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Accessibility” 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.

Adobe Creative Suite Android Architect of the Capitol Blackboard Bureau of Engraving and Printing Cisco Webex Meetings Panopto

Score breakdown

Frequency
46.8
log-scaled weighted occurrences
Breadth
0.9
spread across providers
Quality lift
31.1
mean composite of providers using it
Cohesion
1.1
strength of nearest seed neighbor

Related tags

WCAG 6 co-occurrences Captioning 5 co-occurrences Video 5 co-occurrences Media 7 co-occurrences Developer Tools 6 co-occurrences Analytics 5 co-occurrences MCP 5 co-occurrences Artificial Intelligence 11 co-occurrences

Where this tag comes from

Provider tag33
Api tag17
Openapi tag3
Openapi op tag4

Cohort brief

Auto-generated

The 32 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Accessibility, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.

Providers
32
of 33 in the catalog
Mean Kin Score
26
+3.1 vs catalog 22.9
Mean Agent Readiness
13.8
+1.9 vs catalog 11.9
Spread
3.4–67.8
median 21.8 · σ 17.2
How the 32 split by band
Exemplar 1Strong 1Developing 5Thin 5Emerging 13Minimal 7
Facet averages, against the whole catalog
FacetThis cohortCatalogDifferenceScored
Access Clarity 32.8 26.5 +6.3 32
Operational Transparency 18.6 13.7 +4.9 32
Developer Ergonomics 27.8 23.2 +4.6 32
Discoverability 61.3 58.1 +3.2 32
Contract Governance 7.7 6.3 +1.4 32
Contract Quality 16.7 17.6 -0.9 32

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.

What this cohort publishes
ArtifactThis cohortCatalogDifference
MCP server (any) 25% 14% +11
MCP server (first-party) 25% 12% +13
Agent Skills 0% 0% 0
OAuth scopes 6% 11% -5
Security 100% 98% +2
Arazzo workflows 0% 2% -2
Governance rules 9% 14% -5

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.

Top by Kin Score
  1. 1 BrowserStack 67.8
  2. 2 Agent Ready 63.5
  3. 3 Learnosity 51.1
  4. 4 VerbIT 47.5
  5. 5 accessiBe 45.7
  6. 6 Email on Acid 45
  7. 7 FreeTTS 43.4
  8. 8 TESSA Marketing & Technology 38.4
  9. 9 Voiceitt 38
  10. 10 Cypress.io 37.8
Top by Agent Readiness
  1. 1 Agent Ready 72.9
  2. 2 TESSA Marketing & Technology 47.5
  3. 3 BrowserStack 44.1
  4. 4 accessiBe 44.1
  5. 5 Olark 42.1
  6. 6 US AbilityOne Commission 32.5
  7. 7 VerbIT 25.9
  8. 8 Email on Acid 22.3
  9. 9 W3C 20
  10. 10 Friendly Captcha 19.8
All 33 members of this roster resolve to a provider in the catalog; 32 carry a score (97%). The figures above describe the scored members only.
Coverage caveat. 27 of 32 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 5 October 2026, across 29093 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.

Work with this as data

Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.

MCP server

One button, every client — Claude, Cursor, VS Code and the rest.

https://apis.io/mcp

Tools for tags

7 MCP tools reach this
  • find_tagsBrowse and filter every tag in the catalog.
  • get_cohortThis tag as a scored cohort — every provider carrying it, with scores.
  • cohort_statsPRO — the distribution across this tag: mean, median, band split, adoption rates.
  • cohort_rankingsPRO — the leaderboard, on composite AND agent-readiness axes.
  • apis_io_searchSTART HERE — APIs, providers and tags for one query, each with its total.
  • resolveTurn a domain, URL or GitHub org into the provider it belongs to.
  • find_cohortsEvery scored population of providers in the catalog.
All 92 tools →

Call it yourself

curl for this page
This tag
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/tags/accessibility"
All tags
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/tags?limit=25"
As a scored cohort
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/tag/accessibility"
The distribution (Pro)
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/tag/accessibility/stats" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"

Discovery needs no key. Ratings and market analysis are Pro.

Get an API key

Free tier, no form to fill in. Signing in shares your email address with us — we store it to create your key and to recognise you if you sign in with another provider. See our Privacy Policy and Terms.

A second provider on the same verified email joins the account you already have.