Observability
Providers using this tag (336)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 23 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 50 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 97 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 83 Limited public surface area
Emerging 49 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 32 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (192)
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 39 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 56 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 40 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 36 Limited public surface area
Emerging 18 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (76)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Observability” 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 76 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
336 providers carry this tag directly, and 345 counting the 7 narrower tags below — 9 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 326 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Observability, 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 | 46 | 23.2 | +22.8 | 326 |
| Contract Quality | 36.2 | 17.6 | +18.6 | 326 |
| Operational Transparency | 30.8 | 13.7 | +17.1 | 326 |
| Access Clarity | 41.6 | 26.5 | +15.1 | 326 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 58.1 | +7.4 | 326 |
| Contract Governance | 12 | 6.3 | +5.7 | 326 |
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) | 42% | 14% | +28 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 39% | 12% | +27 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 16% | 11% | +5 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 6% | 2% | +4 |
| Governance rules | 29% | 14% | +15 |
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 Datadog APM 81.9
- 3 LaunchDarkly 80.8
- 4 Sentry 80
- 5 Relevance AI 78.5
- 6 Bugsnag 78.4
- 7 Elastic Stack 78
- 8 ControlUp 75
- 9 ThousandEyes 75
- 10 LogicMonitor 74.6
- 1 SCVD General Store 65.7
- 2 Relevance AI 65.3
- 3 Upsun 60.6
- 4 APIContext 60.1
- 5 Checkly 60
- 6 Coval 59.8
- 7 Lucent 58.8
- 8 Dash0 57.7
- 9 Chronosphere 56.6
- 10 ThousandEyes 56.3
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.