Remote Patient Monitoring
Providers using this tag (71)
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 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 30 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 27 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (8)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Emerging 6 Early or largely undocumented
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 65 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Remote Patient Monitoring, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 29.4 | 26.5 | +2.9 | 65 |
| Contract Governance | 6.8 | 6.3 | +0.5 | 65 |
| Discoverability | 56.3 | 58.1 | -1.8 | 65 |
| Operational Transparency | 8.2 | 13.7 | -5.5 | 65 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 14.5 | 23.2 | -8.7 | 65 |
| Contract Quality | 7.3 | 17.6 | -10.3 | 65 |
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) | 6% | 14% | -8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 0% | 12% | -12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 11% | 0 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 2% | 14% | -12 |
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 eClinicalWorks 69.7
- 2 Validic 58.4
- 3 Athelas 47.4
- 4 Sonde Health 46.8
- 5 Huma 45.4
- 6 VivaLNK 39.8
- 7 Withings 38.8
- 8 Empatica 38.5
- 9 Eko Health 38.4
- 10 BodyTrace 34.4
- 1 eClinicalWorks 40.1
- 2 Validic 33.1
- 3 Athelas 28.2
- 4 Withings 26.2
- 5 Huma 25.6
- 6 Sonde Health 24.6
- 7 Manage BGL 21
- 8 VivaLNK 19.8
- 9 BodyTrace 19.8
- 10 Alivecor 19.8
Coverage caveat. 60 of 65 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.