Digital Asset Management
Digital Asset Managementdigital-asset-management
Providers using this tag (35)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (17)
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 6 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
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 35 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Digital Asset 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 | 54.9 | 22.3 | +32.6 | 35 |
| Contract Quality | 46.6 | 17.5 | +29.1 | 35 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 44.6 | 17.9 | +26.7 | 35 |
| Operational Transparency | 33.2 | 11.3 | +21.9 | 35 |
| Discoverability | 74.6 | 60.4 | +14.2 | 35 |
| Contract Governance | 14.8 | 6.4 | +8.4 | 35 |
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) | 37% | 16% | +21 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 23% | 7% | +16 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 40% | 9% | +31 |
| Security | 97% | 88% | +9 |
| Arazzo workflows | 6% | 2% | +4 |
| Governance rules | 26% | 13% | +13 |
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 Adobe 80.4
- 2 Prismic 70.3
- 3 Acoustic 67.3
- 4 SAP Emarsys 66.4
- 5 MediaValet 62.9
- 6 Bynder 59.6
- 7 CI HUB 57.9
- 8 Salsify 57.3
- 9 Frontify 56.5
- 10 TheBrief 55.7
- 1 Salsify 53.4
- 2 Acoustic 53
- 3 Prismic 48.4
- 4 CI HUB 46.8
- 5 Adobe 46.6
- 6 Frontify 45.2
- 7 Bynder 40.1
- 8 SAP Emarsys 37.9
- 9 MediaValet 34.7
- 10 Brandfolder 33.5
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.
MCP server
One button, every client — Claude, Cursor, VS Code and the rest.
https://apis.io/mcp
Tools for tags
7 MCP tools reach this
find_tagsBrowse and filter every tag in the catalog.get_cohortThis tag as a scored cohort — every provider carrying it, with scores.cohort_statsPRO — the distribution across this tag: mean, median, band split, adoption rates.cohort_rankingsPRO — the leaderboard, on composite AND agent-readiness axes.apis_io_searchSTART HERE — APIs, providers and tags for one query, each with its total.resolveTurn a domain, URL or GitHub org into the provider it belongs to.find_cohortsEvery scored population of providers in the catalog.
Call it yourself
curl for this page
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/tags/digital-asset-management"
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/tags?limit=25"
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/tag/digital-asset-management"
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/tag/digital-asset-management/stats" \
-H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"
Discovery needs no key. Ratings and market analysis are Pro.