Logistics
Providers using this tag (712)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 17 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 83 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 109 Limited public surface area
Emerging 195 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 299 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (163)
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 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 55 Limited public surface area
Emerging 64 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 14 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (24)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Logistics” 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
712 providers carry this tag directly, and 905 counting the 16 narrower tags below and the 7 beneath them — 193 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 662 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Logistics, 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 | 18.4 | 17.2 | +1.2 | 662 |
| Discoverability | 59 | 57.9 | +1.1 | 662 |
| Contract Governance | 5 | 6.5 | -1.5 | 662 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 21.1 | 23.2 | -2.1 | 662 |
| Operational Transparency | 10 | 13 | -3 | 662 |
| Access Clarity | 20.5 | 23.9 | -3.4 | 662 |
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) | 9% | 13% | -4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 8% | 12% | -4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 12% | 16% | -4 |
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 SMKlog 95.3
- 2 AfterShip 82.6
- 3 Doordash 76.2
- 4 Hubble Network 70.5
- 5 Instacart 70
- 6 Sendcloud 66.7
- 7 Australia Post 61.7
- 8 LeafLink 61.5
- 9 Nash 61.5
- 10 Grubhub 60.6
- 1 AfterShip 60.4
- 2 LoadOptimizer.ai 57.3
- 3 Optilogic 55.6
- 4 SMKlog 55.1
- 5 Affinda 51.5
- 6 Kargo 50.9
- 7 Loadsmart 49.2
- 8 Boxc 49
- 9 Sendcloud 48.8
- 10 Happyrobot 48.4
Coverage caveat. 612 of 662 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.