Manufacturing
Providers using this tag (907)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 13 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 34 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 62 Limited public surface area
Emerging 206 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 587 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 3 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (59)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 17 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 14 Limited public surface area
Emerging 17 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (7)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Manufacturing” 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
907 providers carry this tag directly, and 938 counting the 6 narrower tags below — 31 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 837 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Manufacturing, 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 | 3.6 | 6.3 | -2.7 | 837 |
| Discoverability | 53.4 | 58.1 | -4.7 | 837 |
| Operational Transparency | 5 | 13.7 | -8.7 | 837 |
| Access Clarity | 15.8 | 26.5 | -10.7 | 837 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 11.4 | 23.2 | -11.8 | 837 |
| Contract Quality | 5.6 | 17.6 | -12 | 837 |
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) | 3% | 12% | -9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 5% | 14% | -9 |
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 Limble CMMS 75.4
- 2 Infor 68.1
- 3 Katana 60.4
- 4 Epsilon3 60.2
- 5 Hexagon 60.2
- 6 Autodesk 59.9
- 7 Onshape 59.7
- 8 Phasio 58
- 9 Propel Software (Propel PLM) 57.7
- 10 Sift Stack 56.9
- 1 OK Capsule 52
- 2 Epsilon3 50
- 3 Canix 46.2
- 4 First Resonance 45.5
- 5 ECI Solutions 45.1
- 6 Dust Identity 44.7
- 7 Autodesk 44.6
- 8 Phasio 43.7
- 9 ICON Aircraft 42.5
- 10 Limble CMMS 41.9
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.