CLI
CLIClicli
Providers using this tag (102)
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 12 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 35 Limited public surface area
Emerging 48 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 2 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (162)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 44 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 60 Limited public surface area
Emerging 44 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (129)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “CLI” 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 129 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 100 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged CLI, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 45.3 | 23.4 | +21.9 | 100 |
| Operational Transparency | 23.2 | 14 | +9.2 | 100 |
| Discoverability | 63.3 | 61.2 | +2.1 | 100 |
| Contract Governance | 7.9 | 6.4 | +1.5 | 100 |
| Access Clarity | 26.1 | 26.5 | -0.4 | 100 |
| Contract Quality | 13.1 | 19.8 | -6.7 | 100 |
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) | 21% | 10% | +11 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 23% | 13% | +10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 2% | 11% | -9 |
| Security | 91% | 97% | -6 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 2% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 13% | 14% | -1 |
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 Svix 80.4
- 2 Common Room 64.2
- 3 Ploy 59.8
- 4 Qfex 54
- 5 Plandex 50.2
- 6 Continue 50
- 7 tessl.io 48.5
- 8 Mammoth Media 46.8
- 9 vlt 45.2
- 10 APIToolkit (Monoscope) 44.5
- 1 Common Room 63.8
- 2 Svix 49.4
- 3 tessl.io 40.3
- 4 Terminal Use 39
- 5 StakPak 34.3
- 6 Mammoth Media 32.8
- 7 Qfex 28.6
- 8 Machine0 28.2
- 9 TabTabTab 26.6
- 10 Ploy 26.1
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.