Artificial Intelligence
AIAiArtificial Intelligenceai
Providers using this tag (3623)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 29 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 147 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 501 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 532 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1165 Early or largely undocumented
Showing the top 1,000 of 1,165 by rating. See them all →
Minimal 1217 Almost no public developer surface
Showing the top 1,000 of 1,217 by rating. See them all →
APIs with this tag (595)
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 76 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 104 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 146 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 170 Limited public surface area
Emerging 95 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (202)
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 202 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 3435 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 | 29.2 | 26.5 | +2.7 | 3435 |
| Discoverability | 60.7 | 61.2 | -0.5 | 3435 |
| Contract Governance | 5.7 | 6.4 | -0.7 | 3435 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 22.5 | 23.4 | -0.9 | 3435 |
| Operational Transparency | 12.3 | 13.9 | -1.6 | 3435 |
| Contract Quality | 15.7 | 19.8 | -4.1 | 3435 |
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) | 15% | 10% | +5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 19% | 13% | +6 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 9% | 11% | -2 |
| Security | 99% | 96% | +3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 6% | 14% | -8 |
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 Salesforce 87.5
- 2 Ada 83.2
- 3 OpenAI 82.9
- 4 Snowflake 81.2
- 5 Boom Ai 79.9
- 6 Anthropic 77.8
- 7 Regal 77.1
- 8 Adobe Suite 75.6
- 9 Birdeye 75
- 10 Redocly 74.6
- 1 DoiT 74.4
- 2 Natural AI 67.6
- 3 Boom Ai 65.8
- 4 Scope3 65.8
- 5 Lightfield 65.6
- 6 Parallel 65
- 7 WebScraping.AI 65
- 8 TextQL 63.6
- 9 Birdeye 63.3
- 10 Feedly 63.3
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.