MCP
Model Context ProtocolMCP
Providers using this tag (1415)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 117 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 246 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 417 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 316 Limited public surface area
Emerging 292 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (1172)
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 119 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 206 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 319 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 255 Limited public surface area
Emerging 262 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 11 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (335)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “MCP” 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 335 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
1415 providers carry this tag directly, and 1612 counting the 1 narrower tag below and the 1 beneath them — 197 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 1412 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged MCP, 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 | 49.4 | 23.2 | +26.2 | 1412 |
| Access Clarity | 47.9 | 26.5 | +21.4 | 1412 |
| Operational Transparency | 29.7 | 13.7 | +16 | 1412 |
| Discoverability | 71.3 | 58.1 | +13.2 | 1412 |
| Contract Quality | 29.7 | 17.6 | +12.1 | 1412 |
| Contract Governance | 14.6 | 6.3 | +8.3 | 1412 |
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) | 92% | 14% | +78 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 77% | 12% | +65 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 48% | 11% | +37 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 9% | 14% | -5 |
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 APIs.io 90.1
- 2 Tray.ai 89.3
- 3 Xquik 88.7
- 4 ZoomInfo 87.3
- 5 Snowflake 82.7
- 6 Redocly 82.6
- 7 Datadog APM 81.9
- 8 Agoragentic 79.8
- 9 Postman 79.6
- 10 Anthropic 79.4
- 1 Xquik 91.4
- 2 OneSignal 75.4
- 3 APIs.io 75.3
- 4 DoiT 74.4
- 5 ClosedLoop AI 74.2
- 6 Agent Ready 72.9
- 7 Natural AI 71.2
- 8 Sirenic 70.9
- 9 AnyAPI 70.8
- 10 Publora 69.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.