JSON
Providers using this tag (42)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (267)
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 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 42 Limited public surface area
Emerging 45 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 156 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (255)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “JSON” 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 255 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 40 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged JSON, 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 | 38.2 | 18.6 | +19.6 | 40 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 41.5 | 24.5 | +17 | 40 |
| Access Clarity | 46.5 | 30 | +16.5 | 40 |
| Contract Governance | 20.4 | 9.7 | +10.7 | 40 |
| Operational Transparency | 21 | 13.2 | +7.8 | 40 |
| Discoverability | 65.2 | 59.1 | +6.1 | 40 |
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) | 33% | 18% | +15 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 38% | 16% | +22 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 25% | 13% | +12 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 1% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 83% | 36% | +47 |
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 OpenMercantil 79.4
- 2 APIVerve 73.9
- 3 Plinth US Grants Data 68.2
- 4 Couchbase 65.1
- 5 String 61
- 6 SerpResult 58.4
- 7 ComputeFirst 57.1
- 8 socially-run 52.8
- 9 DataSportsAPI 51.7
- 10 samautomation-work 48.8
- 1 String 60.7
- 2 Plinth US Grants Data 55.3
- 3 KG-NINJA 54.8
- 4 socially-run 51.6
- 5 APIVerve 51
- 6 OpenMercantil 47.8
- 7 scraper-api-com 45.1
- 8 FluentEDI 44.8
- 9 pulpminer-com 40.1
- 10 SerpResult 39.8
Coverage caveat. 23 of 40 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.