Scheduling
Schedulingscheduling
Providers using this tag (217)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 17 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 51 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 47 Limited public surface area
Emerging 62 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 32 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 4 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (144)
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 11 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 17 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 42 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 39 Limited public surface area
Emerging 32 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (88)
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 88 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 206 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 | 39 | 26.5 | +12.5 | 206 |
| Contract Quality | 28.5 | 19.8 | +8.7 | 206 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.7 | 13.9 | +7.8 | 206 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 27.7 | 23.4 | +4.3 | 206 |
| Discoverability | 64 | 61.2 | +2.8 | 206 |
| Contract Governance | 6.6 | 6.4 | +0.2 | 206 |
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) | 9% | 10% | -1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 13% | 13% | 0 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 19% | 11% | +8 |
| Security | 98% | 96% | +2 |
| 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 Elation Health 83.7
- 2 Nylas 76.6
- 3 ZnanyLekarz 71.2
- 4 Healthie 68.2
- 5 Spruce Health 64.9
- 6 Zocdoc 64.3
- 7 Mindbody 64.2
- 8 Weave 64.1
- 9 Buffer 63.2
- 10 Chili Piper 63.1
- 1 Publora 69.6
- 2 Nylas 59.3
- 3 LeanData 53.4
- 4 Postiz 52.7
- 5 Jane 50.9
- 6 Zocdoc 49
- 7 Spruce Health 48.4
- 8 Chili Piper 47.1
- 9 Buffer 44.1
- 10 Connecteam 43.3
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.