AI Agents
AI AgentAgentic AIAgenticAI Agents
Providers using this tag (1025)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 44 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 110 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 199 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 191 Limited public surface area
Emerging 285 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 196 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (323)
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 41 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 64 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 96 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 66 Limited public surface area
Emerging 44 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 12 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (76)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “AI Agents” 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.
Show all 76 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
1025 providers carry this tag directly, and 1051 counting the 4 narrower tags below — 26 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 1010 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged AI Agents, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 38 | 23.9 | +14.1 | 1010 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 35.5 | 23.2 | +12.3 | 1010 |
| Operational Transparency | 20.1 | 13 | +7.1 | 1010 |
| Discoverability | 63.4 | 57.9 | +5.5 | 1010 |
| Contract Quality | 20.7 | 17.2 | +3.5 | 1010 |
| Contract Governance | 9.9 | 6.5 | +3.4 | 1010 |
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) | 44% | 13% | +31 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 44% | 12% | +32 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 11% | +6 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 11% | 16% | -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.
- 1 Tray.ai 87.8
- 2 ZoomInfo 86.6
- 3 LaunchDarkly 79.7
- 4 Amigo 78.8
- 5 Postman 78
- 6 Relevance AI 77
- 7 The Colony 74.8
- 8 MandateShield 74.7
- 9 Automation Anywhere 74.6
- 10 Parallel 74.2
- 1 ClosedLoop AI 73.8
- 2 Publora 70.2
- 3 Cracked API 69.2
- 4 Taskfolk 69.1
- 5 Ultravioleta DAO 69.1
- 6 Space Frontiers 68.9
- 7 AlphaAI 67.6
- 8 Allowance 67.6
- 9 1F916 66.4
- 10 The Hog 65.6
Coverage caveat. 875 of 1010 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.