JSON-RPC
Providers using this tag (58)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Developing 10 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 24 Limited public surface area
Emerging 22 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (157)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 20 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 82 Limited public surface area
Emerging 46 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (66)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “JSON-RPC” 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 66 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 58 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged JSON-RPC, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 47.5 | 23.2 | +24.3 | 58 |
| Discoverability | 70.8 | 57.9 | +12.9 | 58 |
| Operational Transparency | 22.4 | 13 | +9.4 | 58 |
| Contract Governance | 11.2 | 6.5 | +4.7 | 58 |
| Contract Quality | 21.3 | 17.2 | +4.1 | 58 |
| Access Clarity | 14.9 | 23.9 | -9 | 58 |
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% | 13% | +8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 24% | 12% | +12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 3% | 11% | -8 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 17% | 16% | +1 |
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 Kusama 48.6
- 2 Moz 46.9
- 3 GRITH 44.9
- 4 Gunzilla Games 44.7
- 5 Zircuit 43.4
- 6 Mysten Labs 43
- 7 ThunderCore 40.8
- 8 Consensys 40.7
- 9 Linea 40.5
- 10 InfStones 39.7
- 1 Mysten Labs 48.6
- 2 Flashbots 47.8
- 3 Moz 34.9
- 4 Nervos 34.9
- 5 Mycelnet 30.9
- 6 Tendermint 30.3
- 7 Optimism 30.1
- 8 Gunzilla Games 29.3
- 9 Monad 29
- 10 Base 29
Coverage caveat. 54 of 58 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.