Documents
DocumentDocuments
Providers using this tag (66)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 11 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 18 Limited public surface area
Emerging 10 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 9 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (524)
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 35 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 85 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 190 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 139 Limited public surface area
Emerging 68 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (439)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Documents” 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 439 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
66 providers carry this tag directly, and 138 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 72 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Legal and E-Signature | 24% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 63 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Documents, 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 | 36.7 | 17.2 | +19.5 | 63 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 41.9 | 23.2 | +18.7 | 63 |
| Operational Transparency | 29.6 | 13 | +16.6 | 63 |
| Access Clarity | 37.8 | 23.9 | +13.9 | 63 |
| Discoverability | 64.1 | 57.9 | +6.2 | 63 |
| Contract Governance | 10.6 | 6.5 | +4.1 | 63 |
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) | 33% | 13% | +20 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 35% | 12% | +23 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 40% | 11% | +29 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 11% | 2% | +9 |
| Governance rules | 30% | 16% | +14 |
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 Suite 77.3
- 2 Coda Project 71.6
- 3 Clickup 70.9
- 4 imgauth — API di attestazione opere digitali 66.3
- 5 Space Frontiers 63.4
- 6 Lev 63
- 7 Microsoft Graph 62.6
- 8 Microsoft Word 61.8
- 9 Dropbox Sign (HelloSign) 60.5
- 10 PostalForm 58.3
- 1 Space Frontiers 68.9
- 2 Adobe Suite 59.9
- 3 PostalForm 59
- 4 Outline 58.7
- 5 Clickup 57
- 6 Lev 55.3
- 7 Coda Project 55.2
- 8 Actionstep 48.9
- 9 Dokki 47.7
- 10 Loopio 47.4
Coverage caveat. 49 of 63 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.