Cloud Infrastructure
Providers using this tag (45)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 12 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 9 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (6)
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 →
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (1)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Cloud Infrastructure” 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.
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 42 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Cloud Infrastructure, 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 | 49.7 | 23.2 | +26.5 | 42 |
| Operational Transparency | 34.1 | 13.7 | +20.4 | 42 |
| Contract Quality | 34 | 17.6 | +16.4 | 42 |
| Access Clarity | 41.6 | 26.5 | +15.1 | 42 |
| Discoverability | 66.7 | 58.1 | +8.6 | 42 |
| Contract Governance | 10.9 | 6.3 | +4.6 | 42 |
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) | 47% | 14% | +33 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 42% | 12% | +30 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 21% | 11% | +10 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 19% | 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.
- 1 Confluent 86.8
- 2 Amazon SES 80.5
- 3 Microsoft Azure Cache For Redis 75.1
- 4 Microsoft Azure Cdn 72.8
- 5 Microsoft Azure Private Link 64.3
- 6 Aptible 58.5
- 7 LaserData 58
- 8 The San Francisco Compute Company 57.1
- 9 Timescale 54.9
- 10 Workspot 54
- 1 Insforge 57.7
- 2 Antimetal 54.3
- 3 The San Francisco Compute Company 53.4
- 4 Confluent 46.7
- 5 Broadcom 44.3
- 6 Limrun 43
- 7 Microsoft Azure Cache For Redis 40.1
- 8 Workspot 39.7
- 9 Amazon SES 38.1
- 10 Microsoft Azure Cdn 35.8
Coverage caveat. 32 of 42 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.