HVAC
Providers using this tag (45)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 2 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 9 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (12)
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 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (1)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “HVAC” 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
45 providers carry this tag directly, and 46 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 1 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 45 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged HVAC, 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 | 5.9 | 6.3 | -0.4 | 45 |
| Operational Transparency | 13.3 | 13.7 | -0.4 | 45 |
| Discoverability | 57.5 | 58.1 | -0.6 | 45 |
| Access Clarity | 23.8 | 26.5 | -2.7 | 45 |
| Contract Quality | 13.3 | 17.6 | -4.3 | 45 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 18.9 | 23.2 | -4.3 | 45 |
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) | 7% | 14% | -7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 7% | 12% | -5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 11% | 0 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 7% | 14% | -7 |
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 Aedifion 62.5
- 2 FieldPulse 59.3
- 3 Carrier Global 54.5
- 4 ServiceTitan 53.6
- 5 Housecall Pro 48.7
- 6 75F 39.9
- 7 PassiveLogic 36.8
- 8 BRICK Schema 36.5
- 9 Sensibo 35.8
- 10 Clockworks Analytics 35.1
- 1 Aedifion 47.8
- 2 Carrier Global 41.5
- 3 FieldPulse 38.7
- 4 PassiveLogic 35.1
- 5 Hello Therma 32.7
- 6 BuildOps 28.4
- 7 BRICK Schema 26.8
- 8 Sensibo 24.8
- 9 ServiceTitan 24.4
- 10 Commusoft 22.3
Coverage caveat. 39 of 45 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.