Configuration Management
Providers using this tag (30)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (19)
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 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (12)
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 28 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 41.7 | 23.2 | +18.5 | 28 |
| Contract Quality | 35.2 | 17.6 | +17.6 | 28 |
| Operational Transparency | 26.6 | 13.7 | +12.9 | 28 |
| Access Clarity | 35.1 | 26.5 | +8.6 | 28 |
| Contract Governance | 11.9 | 6.3 | +5.6 | 28 |
| Discoverability | 63.1 | 58.1 | +5 | 28 |
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) | 14% | 14% | 0 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 11% | 12% | -1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 11% | +3 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 50% | 14% | +36 |
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 Statsig 76.7
- 2 Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 66
- 3 Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Management 58.8
- 4 Chef Software 58.7
- 5 Amazon Config 56.7
- 6 Ansible 47.8
- 7 Ansible Playbooks 46.8
- 8 Red Hat Satellite 46
- 9 Apollo Config 45.8
- 10 OpsMill 45.6
- 1 Statsig 57.1
- 2 Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 33.4
- 3 OpsMill 30.1
- 4 Amazon Config 28.1
- 5 Apollo Config 26
- 6 Apache ZooKeeper 25.8
- 7 Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Management 24.8
- 8 Red Hat Satellite 24.8
- 9 Ansible 24.6
- 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.