REST API
REST APIsREST API
Providers using this tag (120)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 16 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 40 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 37 Limited public surface area
Emerging 20 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (118)
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 12 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 27 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 35 Limited public surface area
Emerging 29 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (74)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “REST API” 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 74 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 118 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged REST API, 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 | 37.6 | 17.6 | +20 | 118 |
| Operational Transparency | 32.9 | 13.7 | +19.2 | 118 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 41.3 | 23.2 | +18.1 | 118 |
| Access Clarity | 42.6 | 26.5 | +16.1 | 118 |
| Discoverability | 67.8 | 58.1 | +9.7 | 118 |
| Contract Governance | 12.5 | 6.3 | +6.2 | 118 |
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) | 16% | 14% | +2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 14% | 12% | +2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 16% | 11% | +5 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 34% | 14% | +20 |
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 OpenMercantil 80.6
- 2 Cvent 78
- 3 Cvent Registration 76.9
- 4 SugarCRM 65
- 5 Taskfolk 64.7
- 6 1Lookup 64.2
- 7 Zillapi 63.8
- 8 SiftingIO 61.1
- 9 Beeketing 61
- 10 Autoderm – AI Dermatology API 60.5
- 1 Taskfolk 69.2
- 2 Zillapi 59.5
- 3 1Lookup 55.4
- 4 Jane 50.9
- 5 Fusio 50.6
- 6 Sweep 48.5
- 7 OpenMercantil 46.6
- 8 supernormal 45.9
- 9 Cvent 42.6
- 10 Cvent Registration 42.6
Coverage caveat. 70 of 118 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.