Field Service Management
Providers using this tag (39)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 10 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 2 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (4)
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 →
Developing 1 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 36 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Field Service Management, 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 | 28.7 | 17.6 | +11.1 | 36 |
| Access Clarity | 35.1 | 26.5 | +8.6 | 36 |
| Operational Transparency | 19.5 | 13.7 | +5.8 | 36 |
| Discoverability | 63.5 | 58.1 | +5.4 | 36 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 26.1 | 23.2 | +2.9 | 36 |
| Contract Governance | 4.3 | 6.3 | -2 | 36 |
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) | 16% | 14% | +2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 13% | 12% | +1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 95% | 98% | -3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 16% | 14% | +2 |
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 FieldPulse 59.3
- 2 Coperniq 55.4
- 3 Jobber 54.8
- 4 D-Tools 53.6
- 5 ServiceTitan 53.6
- 6 Skedulo 53.2
- 7 Housecall Pro 48.7
- 8 Aerones 46.5
- 9 Zuper 45.6
- 10 PTC 39.8
- 1 Jobber 45.3
- 2 Aerones 44.1
- 3 FieldPulse 38.7
- 4 Skedulo 38.5
- 5 Coperniq 32.1
- 6 D-Tools 29
- 7 BuildOps 28.4
- 8 Zuper 28.1
- 9 Service Fusion 24.8
- 10 Simpro 24.8
Coverage caveat. 21 of 36 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.