Conversational AI
ConversationalConversational AI
Providers using this tag (228)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 5 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 49 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 52 Limited public surface area
Emerging 60 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 47 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (49)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 9 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 16 Limited public surface area
Emerging 18 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (15)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Conversational AI” 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
228 providers carry this tag directly, and 284 counting the 3 narrower tags below — 56 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 218 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Conversational AI, 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 | 32.1 | 23.2 | +8.9 | 218 |
| Access Clarity | 35.1 | 26.5 | +8.6 | 218 |
| Contract Quality | 23.9 | 17.6 | +6.3 | 218 |
| Discoverability | 63.6 | 58.1 | +5.5 | 218 |
| Operational Transparency | 18.6 | 13.7 | +4.9 | 218 |
| Contract Governance | 7.8 | 6.3 | +1.5 | 218 |
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) | 26% | 14% | +12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 24% | 12% | +12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 11% | 0 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 9% | 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 Ada 84.4
- 2 ElevenLabs 81.8
- 3 Amazon Lex 78.1
- 4 Boom Ai 75.6
- 5 Google Dialogflow 67.4
- 6 SignalWire 65.4
- 7 Amigo 64.3
- 8 Genesys 60.3
- 9 Synthflow 60
- 10 Gridspace 59.3
- 1 Sarj AI Developer API 67.3
- 2 Boom Ai 63.6
- 3 Speko 60.5
- 4 Coval 59.8
- 5 Karumi 59.4
- 6 Genesys 57.4
- 7 Phonic 56.9
- 8 Synthflow 54
- 9 Bolna 53.6
- 10 ElevenLabs 52.7
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.