Scheduling
Providers using this tag (239)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 19 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 52 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 54 Limited public surface area
Emerging 65 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 42 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 3 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (135)
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 10 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 18 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 38 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 30 Limited public surface area
Emerging 33 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (77)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Scheduling” 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 77 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
239 providers carry this tag directly, and 279 counting the 18 narrower tags below — 40 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 229 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Scheduling, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 38.4 | 26.5 | +11.9 | 229 |
| Contract Quality | 25.9 | 17.6 | +8.3 | 229 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.2 | 13.7 | +7.5 | 229 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 27.3 | 23.2 | +4.1 | 229 |
| Discoverability | 62.1 | 58.1 | +4 | 229 |
| Contract Governance | 6.9 | 6.3 | +0.6 | 229 |
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) | 14% | 14% | 0 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 13% | 12% | +1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 19% | 11% | +8 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 17% | 14% | +3 |
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 Nylas 93.2
- 2 Elation Health 77.5
- 3 ZnanyLekarz 68.1
- 4 Buffer 67
- 5 Postiz 66.4
- 6 Chili Piper 66
- 7 Healthie 65.8
- 8 Microsoft Azure Batch 63.7
- 9 Mindbody 63.4
- 10 Hootsuite 63.3
- 1 Publora 69.6
- 2 Nylas 56.6
- 3 Chili Piper 55.6
- 4 LeanData 53.4
- 5 Postiz 52.7
- 6 Jane 50.9
- 7 Hootsuite 49.5
- 8 Zocdoc 49
- 9 SavvyCal 48.8
- 10 Spruce Health 48.4
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.