Routing
Providers using this tag (40)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 12 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (87)
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 20 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 23 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 23 Limited public surface area
Emerging 14 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (57)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Routing” 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 57 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 37 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Routing, 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 | 43.7 | 17.6 | +26.1 | 37 |
| Operational Transparency | 30.2 | 13.7 | +16.5 | 37 |
| Access Clarity | 41.6 | 26.5 | +15.1 | 37 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.7 | 23.2 | +14.5 | 37 |
| Discoverability | 66 | 58.1 | +7.9 | 37 |
| Contract Governance | 10.9 | 6.3 | +4.6 | 37 |
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) | 19% | 14% | +5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 16% | 12% | +4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 46% | 14% | +32 |
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 HERE 71.2
- 2 Esri 70.4
- 3 Tomorrow.io 63.8
- 4 HyperTrack 59.3
- 5 Amazon Location Service 59
- 6 Bringg 55
- 7 Amazon Route 53 52.8
- 8 Azure Maps 51.1
- 9 Google Maps Platform 50.9
- 10 Ubiquiti 50.8
- 1 HERE 55.9
- 2 Esri 50.8
- 3 Mapbox 44.6
- 4 HyperTrack 42.6
- 5 TomTom 35.2
- 6 Tomorrow.io 32.6
- 7 Bringg 29.6
- 8 Google Maps Platform 27.3
- 9 Chargetrip 25.9
- 10 osmAPI 25.5
Coverage caveat. 19 of 37 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.