Remote Sensing
Providers using this tag (68)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 21 Limited public surface area
Emerging 14 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 28 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (5)
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 →
Thin 4 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (4)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Remote Sensing” 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
Where this tag sits
68 providers carry this tag directly, and 76 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 8 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Space and Satellite (operators, earth observation, ground segment) | 27% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 64 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Remote Sensing, 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 | 20.3 | 17.2 | +3.1 | 64 |
| Discoverability | 58.2 | 57.9 | +0.3 | 64 |
| Contract Governance | 5.9 | 6.5 | -0.6 | 64 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 20.9 | 23.2 | -2.3 | 64 |
| Operational Transparency | 9.2 | 13 | -3.8 | 64 |
| Access Clarity | 15.2 | 23.9 | -8.7 | 64 |
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) | 3% | 13% | -10 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 3% | 12% | -9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 9% | 11% | -2 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 16% | 16% | 0 |
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 openEO 48.5
- 2 Google Earth Engine REST 46.2
- 3 Umbra 45.3
- 4 Vantor 43.7
- 5 BlackSky 42.3
- 6 Hydrosat 38.3
- 7 NASA FIRMS 38.3
- 8 Near Space Labs 37
- 9 Pixxel 36.8
- 10 DLR 34.7
- 1 Umbra 47.2
- 2 BlackSky 37.4
- 3 CarbonFarm 36.6
- 4 Aarav Unmanned Systems (Aereo) 33.5
- 5 GeoInsight 32.3
- 6 Arlula 31.9
- 7 openEO 31.8
- 8 Agromonitoring 29.2
- 9 NASA FIRMS 28.4
- 10 Vantor 27.4
Coverage caveat. 58 of 64 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.