Mobile Games
Providers using this tag (86)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 12 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 70 Almost no public developer surface
TripledotPocket GemsInfiniGodsJam CityLilith GamesSuper Evil MegacorpHutch GamesJunglee GamesKabamPokelaboPlaycoEnd Game InteractiveSett AIPlayQSupersolidMother GamesRovio EntertainmentWildlife Studios6 WavesBIT ODDClosing Theory StudiosFreshPlanetFutureplayGood Job GamesPLAYSTUDIOSSuperGamingTaleMonster GamesAzra GamesGrand GamesironSourceTouchtenSecond DinnerLight & WonderagavegamesMoonActiveDownjoy (当乐网)Talofa GamesforgameJetapultHappy ElementsMagic Circle StudioPlatogoSpace ApePlaytika HoldingPeak Games12 GigsbaoyugameBionic Panda GamesDoodle MobileHortor GamesJump Ramp GamesN3tworknaturalmotionPixOwlRevolving GamesSeriouslyWeebyCarbonatedAres InteractiveDotsTamatemAppionicsMagmatic GamesnWayParhelion Studio Co.t4game8secGTRIn-FusioMediaSpike
APIs with this tag (0)
No API pages are linked for this tag yet. Search apis.io →
Score breakdown
Frequency
53.3
log-scaled weighted occurrences
Breadth
2.2
spread across providers
Quality lift
11.6
mean composite of providers using it
Cohesion
21.4
strength of nearest seed neighbor
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Gaming 80 co-occurrences
Casual Games 11 co-occurrences
Game Development 19 co-occurrences
Entertainment 49 co-occurrences
Video Games 16 co-occurrences
Game Publishing 9 co-occurrences
Game Studio 12 co-occurrences
Free-to-Play 8 co-occurrences
Where this tag comes from
Provider tag86
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 72 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Mobile Games, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
Providers
72
of 86 in the catalog
Mean Kin Score
10.6
-12.3 vs catalog 22.9
Mean Agent Readiness
3.4
-8.5 vs catalog 11.9
Spread
0–61.8
median 8.8 · σ 11
How the 72 split by band
Exemplar 0Strong 2Developing 1Thin 1Emerging 11Minimal 57
Facet averages, against the whole catalog
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Governance | 1.3 | 6.3 | -5 | 72 |
| Discoverability | 50.9 | 58.1 | -7.2 | 72 |
| Operational Transparency | 4 | 13.7 | -9.7 | 72 |
| Access Clarity | 13.7 | 26.5 | -12.8 | 72 |
| Contract Quality | 3.3 | 17.6 | -14.3 | 72 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 8.6 | 23.2 | -14.6 | 72 |
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.
What this cohort publishes
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 6% | 14% | -8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 3% | 12% | -9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 1% | 11% | -10 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 2% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 0% | 14% | -14 |
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.
Top by Kin Score
- 1 Appcharge 61.8
- 2 AppLike Group 59.9
- 3 Aghanim 46.3
- 4 Carry1st 30.4
- 5 Voodoo 24.7
- 6 INK Games 19.3
- 7 Triumph 19.3
- 8 Homa Games 19.2
- 9 Supercell 17.7
- 10 Xiao-Y Technology (小y科技) 17.4
All 86 members of this roster resolve to a provider in the
catalog; 72 carry a score (84%).
The figures above describe the scored members only.
Coverage caveat. 72 of 72 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.
Coverage caveat. 72 of 72 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.