Configuration Management
Configuration ManagementConfigurationManagement
Providers using this tag (30)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 9 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (22)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (14)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Configuration Management” 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 27 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Configuration Management, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 38.8 | 19.8 | +19 | 27 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 41.4 | 23.4 | +18 | 27 |
| Operational Transparency | 25.6 | 14 | +11.6 | 27 |
| Access Clarity | 35.3 | 26.5 | +8.8 | 27 |
| Contract Governance | 10.7 | 6.4 | +4.3 | 27 |
| Discoverability | 65.1 | 61.2 | +3.9 | 27 |
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) | 11% | 10% | +1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 7% | 13% | -6 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 11% | +3 |
| Security | 96% | 97% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 7% | 2% | +5 |
| Governance rules | 46% | 14% | +32 |
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 Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 63.2
- 2 Chef Software 58.1
- 3 Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Management 56.8
- 4 Amazon Config 55.2
- 5 Chef 47.5
- 6 Ansible 47.3
- 7 Apollo Config 47.2
- 8 OpsMill 47.2
- 9 Ansible Playbooks 47.1
- 10 Red Hat Satellite 44.3
- 1 Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 31
- 2 OpsMill 30.1
- 3 Apollo Config 26.4
- 4 Apache ZooKeeper 25.8
- 5 Amazon Config 25.2
- 6 Ansible 25
- 7 Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Management 24.8
- 8 Red Hat Satellite 24.8
- 9 Chef Software 23.8
- 10 Cloudflare KV 23
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.