REST
Providers using this tag (138)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 8 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 26 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 53 Limited public surface area
Emerging 36 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (959)
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 50 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 66 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 152 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 288 Limited public surface area
Emerging 219 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 184 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (640)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “REST” 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 640 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 138 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged REST, 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 | 37.2 | 17.2 | +20 | 138 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.6 | 23.2 | +14.4 | 138 |
| Operational Transparency | 25.9 | 13 | +12.9 | 138 |
| Discoverability | 66.5 | 57.9 | +8.6 | 138 |
| Access Clarity | 29 | 23.9 | +5.1 | 138 |
| Contract Governance | 11.4 | 6.5 | +4.9 | 138 |
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) | 23% | 13% | +10 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 24% | 12% | +12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 11% | +6 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 42% | 16% | +26 |
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 WSO2 83
- 2 Confluent | the Data Streaming Platform 76.3
- 3 Svix 73.1
- 4 0xArchive 71.7
- 5 Cvent Event Cloud 70.9
- 6 Amazon API Gateway 69.1
- 7 Canvas 68.9
- 8 Buildkite 66.5
- 9 StayingAPI 64.9
- 10 Routebase 64.3
- 1 0xArchive 68.7
- 2 Builder.io 64.4
- 3 StayingAPI 60.2
- 4 Newstore 58
- 5 Anvil 57.9
- 6 Social Fetch 57.1
- 7 Smartling 56.2
- 8 Plinth US Grants Data 53.9
- 9 Routebase 52.8
- 10 APIVerve 51
Coverage caveat. 101 of 138 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.