Food and Beverage
Food and DrinkFood and Beverage
Providers using this tag (268)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 32 Limited public surface area
Emerging 80 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 148 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (17)
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
Developing 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 13 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (1)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Food and Beverage” 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
Where this tag sits
268 providers carry this tag directly, and 498 counting the 11 narrower tags below — 230 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 236 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Food and Beverage, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Governance | 5 | 6.3 | -1.3 | 236 |
| Discoverability | 55.5 | 58.1 | -2.6 | 236 |
| Access Clarity | 19.7 | 26.5 | -6.8 | 236 |
| Operational Transparency | 4.1 | 13.7 | -9.6 | 236 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 12.3 | 23.2 | -10.9 | 236 |
| Contract Quality | 5.4 | 17.6 | -12.2 | 236 |
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% | 14% | +7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 6% | 12% | -6 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 18% | 11% | +7 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 6% | 14% | -8 |
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 Open Food Facts 60.1
- 2 fatsecret 55.2
- 3 Spoonacular 52.9
- 4 Altruistiq 43.9
- 5 Tastewise 43.1
- 6 Nutritionix 41.2
- 7 Opply 40.2
- 8 Crunchtime 38.6
- 9 Edamam 38.3
- 10 Kitchen Stories 38.2
- 1 Apicbase 44.6
- 2 Opply 44.4
- 3 Kite Hill 38.9
- 4 Redefine Meat 37.6
- 5 ColdSnap 36
- 6 Kate Farms 35.3
- 7 Mud\Wtr 35.3
- 8 Poppi 34.4
- 9 BulletProof 34.1
- 10 Cometeer 32.9
Coverage caveat. 226 of 236 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.