Open Access
Providers using this tag (137)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 27 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 76 Limited public surface area
Emerging 24 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 9 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (231)
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 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 50 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 126 Limited public surface area
Emerging 44 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 8 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (55)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Open Access” 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 55 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 137 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Open Access, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 28.3 | 17.6 | +10.7 | 137 |
| Access Clarity | 36.9 | 26.5 | +10.4 | 137 |
| Discoverability | 66.1 | 58.1 | +8 | 137 |
| Operational Transparency | 20.3 | 13.7 | +6.6 | 137 |
| Contract Governance | 12 | 6.3 | +5.7 | 137 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25.5 | 23.2 | +2.3 | 137 |
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) | 2% | 14% | -12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 12% | -10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 22% | 11% | +11 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 39% | 14% | +25 |
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 Delft University of Technology 57.3
- 2 University of Cambridge 50
- 3 Uppsala University 49.4
- 4 Dryad 49
- 5 arXiv 48.1
- 6 Australian National University 47.9
- 7 TU Wien 47.1
- 8 Zenodo 47.1
- 9 RWTH Aachen University 45.9
- 10 Pennsylvania State University 45.8
- 1 DeSci Labs 53
- 2 Queensland University of Technology 34.7
- 3 Semantic Scholar 34.2
- 4 Massey University 33.3
- 5 Figshare 33.1
- 6 Smithsonian Institution 32.5
- 7 Unpaywall 32.5
- 8 University of Calgary 32.4
- 9 Carnegie Mellon University 32.1
- 10 University of Waikato 31.3
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.