Monitoring
Providers using this tag (218)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 23 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 34 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 57 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 45 Limited public surface area
Emerging 30 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 29 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (276)
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 49 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 46 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 85 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 59 Limited public surface area
Emerging 32 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (174)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Monitoring” 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 174 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
218 providers carry this tag directly, and 494 counting the 26 narrower tags below and the 5 beneath them — 276 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 208 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Monitoring, 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 | 45.4 | 23.2 | +22.2 | 208 |
| Contract Quality | 39.4 | 17.6 | +21.8 | 208 |
| Access Clarity | 44.4 | 26.5 | +17.9 | 208 |
| Operational Transparency | 31.2 | 13.7 | +17.5 | 208 |
| Contract Governance | 13.8 | 6.3 | +7.5 | 208 |
| Discoverability | 65.2 | 58.1 | +7.1 | 208 |
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) | 40% | 14% | +26 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 36% | 12% | +24 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 16% | 11% | +5 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 36% | 14% | +22 |
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 Dynatrace 86.3
- 2 Redocly 82.6
- 3 Sentry 80
- 4 Datadog 79.1
- 5 Bugsnag 78.4
- 6 Elastic Stack 78
- 7 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 76.4
- 8 ControlUp 75
- 9 ThousandEyes 75
- 10 LogicMonitor 74.6
- 1 Checkly 60
- 2 Monte Carlo 58.6
- 3 Dash0 57.7
- 4 Chronosphere 56.6
- 5 ThousandEyes 56.3
- 6 Social Fetch 56.2
- 7 Lightrun 55.8
- 8 Better Stack 55.6
- 9 Conviva 53.6
- 10 BigPanda 52.8
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.