Routing
Providers using this tag (39)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 12 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 11 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (94)
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 9 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 17 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 29 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 20 Limited public surface area
Emerging 18 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (62)
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 62 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 36 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 | 48.5 | 20.1 | +28.4 | 36 |
| Operational Transparency | 31.2 | 14 | +17.2 | 36 |
| Access Clarity | 41.6 | 26.5 | +15.1 | 36 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.2 | 23.4 | +13.8 | 36 |
| Discoverability | 67.8 | 61 | +6.8 | 36 |
| Contract Governance | 12.1 | 6.5 | +5.6 | 36 |
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) | 11% | 10% | +1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 14% | 13% | +1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 97% | 96% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 49% | 13% | +36 |
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 69.9
- 2 ESRI ArcGIS 65.8
- 3 Tomorrow.io 65.1
- 4 HyperTrack 59.8
- 5 Bringg 59.6
- 6 Amazon Location Service 58
- 7 Amazon Route 53 56.9
- 8 Ubiquiti 51.9
- 9 Google Maps Platform 51.1
- 10 Azure Maps 50.6
- 1 ESRI ArcGIS 56
- 2 HERE 55.9
- 3 HyperTrack 42.6
- 4 TomTom 35.2
- 5 Tomorrow.io 32.6
- 6 Bringg 29.6
- 7 Google Maps Platform 29.4
- 8 Chargetrip 25.9
- 9 osmAPI 25.5
- 10 128 Technology 25.2
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.