Content Management
Providers using this tag (120)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 12 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 16 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 27 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 25 Limited public surface area
Emerging 31 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 9 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (62)
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 15 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 9 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (24)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Content 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
Where this tag sits
120 providers carry this tag directly, and 125 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 5 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 119 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Content Management, 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 | 45.3 | 26.5 | +18.8 | 119 |
| Contract Quality | 34 | 17.6 | +16.4 | 119 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 38.2 | 23.2 | +15 | 119 |
| Operational Transparency | 28.1 | 13.7 | +14.4 | 119 |
| Discoverability | 66 | 58.1 | +7.9 | 119 |
| Contract Governance | 10.5 | 6.3 | +4.2 | 119 |
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) | 39% | 14% | +25 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 34% | 12% | +22 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 29% | 11% | +18 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 6% | 2% | +4 |
| Governance rules | 22% | 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 Optimizely 80.8
- 2 Salesforce Marketing Cloud 77.3
- 3 Acquia 76.8
- 4 Contentstack 75.1
- 5 Veeva 72.8
- 6 dotCMS 71.9
- 7 Prismic 71.1
- 8 Archbee 70.9
- 9 Confluence 70.1
- 10 Progress Software 68.9
- 1 Optimizely 62.5
- 2 Acquia 60.6
- 3 Automattic 60.2
- 4 Contentful 59.9
- 5 Box 58.6
- 6 Archbee 58.5
- 7 Salesforce Marketing Cloud 57.9
- 8 Coda Project 54.8
- 9 Confluence 54.4
- 10 Prismic 53.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.