E-Signature
E-SignatureE-signatureeSignature
Providers using this tag (58)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 25 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 16 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (14)
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 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (7)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “E-Signature” 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 56 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged E-Signature, 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 | 50.6 | 19.8 | +30.8 | 56 |
| Access Clarity | 48.1 | 26.5 | +21.6 | 56 |
| Operational Transparency | 32.4 | 14 | +18.4 | 56 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 38.3 | 23.4 | +14.9 | 56 |
| Discoverability | 69.2 | 61.2 | +8 | 56 |
| Contract Governance | 10 | 6.4 | +3.6 | 56 |
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) | 21% | 10% | +11 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 26% | 13% | +13 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 39% | 11% | +28 |
| Security | 98% | 97% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 28% | 14% | +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 Docusign 64
- 2 imgauth — API di attestazione opere digitali 63.5
- 3 JuriSign 63.1
- 4 Conga 62.6
- 5 GetAccept 62
- 6 GoNitro 56.9
- 7 Ironclad 56.9
- 8 Dropbox Sign (HelloSign) 56.6
- 9 Nitro Software 54.6
- 10 YouSign 53.8
- 1 Conga 50.5
- 2 Sadq Holding Limited 50.3
- 3 Lone Wolf Technologies 49.3
- 4 DocSend 47.1
- 5 Dropbox Sign (HelloSign) 44.8
- 6 Qwilr 44.6
- 7 Hubflo 44.4
- 8 Lawmatics 42.2
- 9 DocuSeal 37.8
- 10 JuriSign 36.8
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.