Governance
Providers using this tag (126)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 7 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 18 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 23 Limited public surface area
Emerging 40 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 34 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (85)
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 24 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 22 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 11 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (57)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Governance” 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 57 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
127 providers carry this tag directly, and 288 counting the 3 narrower tags below — 162 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 117 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Governance, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 32.2 | 26.5 | +5.7 | 117 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 28.5 | 23.2 | +5.3 | 117 |
| Operational Transparency | 17.1 | 13.7 | +3.4 | 117 |
| Discoverability | 60.8 | 58.1 | +2.7 | 117 |
| Contract Governance | 8.7 | 6.3 | +2.4 | 117 |
| Contract Quality | 19.8 | 17.6 | +2.2 | 117 |
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) | 19% | 14% | +5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 16% | 12% | +4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 10% | 11% | -1 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 20% | 14% | +6 |
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 Redocly 82.6
- 2 Agoragentic 79.8
- 3 Moesif 66.9
- 4 anecdotes 64
- 5 Eclipse Foundation 63.6
- 6 Treblle 63.2
- 7 Mendix 57.7
- 8 SmartBear 57.3
- 9 Portkey 57
- 10 Amazon Config 56.7
- 1 Agoragentic 58.1
- 2 Clawvisor 55.8
- 3 Sweep 48.5
- 4 Eclipse Foundation 46
- 5 Goethena 44.8
- 6 Moesif 40
- 7 ChannelSeal 39.9
- 8 anecdotes 36.7
- 9 Portkey 35.6
- 10 Idle Finance 35.4
Coverage caveat. 95 of 117 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.