On-Premises
On-PremiseOn Premises
Providers using this tag (26)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (15)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 7 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Companies reaching this through an API (13)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “On-Premises” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 22 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged On-Premises, 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 | 41.5 | 22.1 | +19.4 | 22 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.3 | 12.4 | +8.9 | 22 |
| Contract Quality | 25.4 | 18.2 | +7.2 | 22 |
| Discoverability | 63.5 | 57.9 | +5.6 | 22 |
| Access Clarity | 28.6 | 25 | +3.6 | 22 |
| Contract Governance | 12.5 | 9.4 | +3.1 | 22 |
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) | 9% | 16% | -7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 9% | 14% | -5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 13% | +1 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 50% | 35% | +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 Replicated 71.5
- 2 Amazon Outposts 54.3
- 3 Cisco Crosswork 51.9
- 4 Google Distributed Cloud 49.4
- 5 QlikView 48.1
- 6 Oxide 47.8
- 7 SPAN 40.1
- 8 ownCloud 37
- 9 Google Anthos 36.8
- 10 VoiceDock 36.5
- 1 comos-gateway-com 48.1
- 2 VoiceDock 41.2
- 3 Amazon Outposts 41
- 4 ownCloud 34.5
- 5 Infinidat 33.3
- 6 Cisco Crosswork 33.2
- 7 Replicated 29
- 8 Oxide 28.1
- 9 Reka 28
- 10 Google Distributed Cloud 24.6
Coverage caveat. 18 of 22 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 7 November 2026, across 38912 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.