Artificial Intelligence
AIAI/MLArtificial Intelligence
Providers using this tag (4460)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 53 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 193 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 567 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 662 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1383 Early or largely undocumented
Showing the top 1,000 of 1,383 by rating. See them all →
Minimal 1590 Almost no public developer surface
Showing the top 1,000 of 1,590 by rating. See them all →
APIs with this tag (573)
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 80 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 101 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 130 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 154 Limited public surface area
Emerging 97 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 11 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (192)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Artificial Intelligence” 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 192 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
4460 providers carry this tag directly, and 4502 or more counting the 14 narrower tags below and the 16 beneath them — 1015 more to reach. A count here is a floor: one of these tags holds more members than are listed.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 4241 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Artificial Intelligence, 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 | 31.7 | 23.9 | +7.8 | 4241 |
| Discoverability | 58.3 | 57.9 | +0.4 | 4241 |
| Contract Governance | 6.4 | 6.5 | -0.1 | 4241 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 22.8 | 23.2 | -0.4 | 4241 |
| Operational Transparency | 11.5 | 13 | -1.5 | 4241 |
| Contract Quality | 13.5 | 17.2 | -3.7 | 4241 |
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% | 13% | +5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 17% | 12% | +5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 2% | -1 |
| 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 GatiFlow 95.3
- 2 Anthropic 89
- 3 Salesforce 88.8
- 4 Ada 87.6
- 5 Telnyx 86.1
- 6 OpenAI 84.5
- 7 Snowflake 81.2
- 8 Redocly 81.1
- 9 Cloudflare 80.6
- 10 ElevenLabs 80.4
- 1 Telnyx 78.1
- 2 DoiT 74.1
- 3 Natural AI 71
- 4 Cloudflare 69.6
- 5 Arcmira 68.9
- 6 Lightfield 67.4
- 7 cloro 67
- 8 AutoContent API 66.1
- 9 Feedly 65.3
- 10 Parallel 64.7
Coverage caveat. 3880 of 4241 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.