Documentation
Providers using this tag (129)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 8 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 13 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 25 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 35 Limited public surface area
Emerging 36 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 12 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (144)
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 25 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 31 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 35 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 21 Limited public surface area
Emerging 29 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (104)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Documentation” 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.
Show all 104 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
129 providers carry this tag directly, and 147 counting the 4 narrower tags below — 18 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 125 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Documentation, 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 | 35.4 | 24.5 | +10.9 | 125 |
| Contract Quality | 28.9 | 18.6 | +10.3 | 125 |
| Access Clarity | 40.3 | 30 | +10.3 | 125 |
| Operational Transparency | 20.8 | 13.2 | +7.6 | 125 |
| Contract Governance | 15.6 | 9.7 | +5.9 | 125 |
| Discoverability | 63.3 | 59.1 | +4.2 | 125 |
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) | 30% | 18% | +12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 30% | 16% | +14 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 15% | 13% | +2 |
| Security | 99% | 99% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 1% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 64% | 36% | +28 |
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 Confluence 77.7
- 2 Stoplight 74.1
- 3 Speakeasy 72.3
- 4 GitBook 71.5
- 5 Archbee 70.8
- 6 CompanyCam 70.3
- 7 ReadMe 68.8
- 8 Treblle 67.4
- 9 DeveloperHub 65.8
- 10 Bump.sh 65.2
- 1 DeveloperHub 60.5
- 2 Archbee 59.3
- 3 Confluence 56.9
- 4 Bump.sh 54.4
- 5 moxiedocs-com 54.2
- 6 CoreStory 53.8
- 7 Hashnode 53.6
- 8 Speakeasy 52.5
- 9 GitBook 52.1
- 10 Agent Surface 50.6
Coverage caveat. 89 of 125 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.