Distributed Systems
Providers using this tag (47)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 20 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 11 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (6)
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 →
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (3)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Distributed Systems” 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 37 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Distributed Systems, 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 | 34.1 | 17.2 | +16.9 | 37 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 39.7 | 23.2 | +16.5 | 37 |
| Operational Transparency | 26.9 | 13 | +13.9 | 37 |
| Contract Governance | 14.9 | 6.5 | +8.4 | 37 |
| Discoverability | 60.2 | 57.9 | +2.3 | 37 |
| Access Clarity | 18.5 | 23.9 | -5.4 | 37 |
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) | 8% | 13% | -5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 8% | 12% | -4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 3% | 11% | -8 |
| Security | 92% | 98% | -6 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 61% | 16% | +45 |
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 Synadia Communications 67.6
- 2 Amazon SQS 57.2
- 3 Etcd 48.5
- 4 Zeebe 48.4
- 5 Apache Kafka 47.7
- 6 Apollo Config 44.4
- 7 Google Cloud Tasks 44.1
- 8 Azure Service Fabric 42.7
- 9 wasmCloud 41.1
- 10 Lightbend 40.6
- 1 Synadia Communications 32.3
- 2 Restate 32.1
- 3 Amazon SQS 31.1
- 4 Apache Kafka 28.4
- 5 Zeebe 26.3
- 6 Etcd 25.3
- 7 Apollo Config 24.8
- 8 Celery 21.9
- 9 Apache BookKeeper 21.3
- 10 Service Fabric 21.2
Coverage caveat. 25 of 37 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 24 October 2026, across 31984 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.