SCIM
SCIMScimscim
Providers using this tag (61)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 7 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 18 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 26 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
APIs with this tag (109)
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 25 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 42 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 20 Limited public surface area
Emerging 11 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (74)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “SCIM” 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 74 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 61 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged SCIM, 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 | 53.6 | 19.8 | +33.8 | 61 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 51.3 | 23.4 | +27.9 | 61 |
| Operational Transparency | 41.5 | 14 | +27.5 | 61 |
| Access Clarity | 51.1 | 26.5 | +24.6 | 61 |
| Discoverability | 71.2 | 61.2 | +10 | 61 |
| Contract Governance | 16 | 6.4 | +9.6 | 61 |
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) | 30% | 10% | +20 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 31% | 13% | +18 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 56% | 11% | +45 |
| Security | 100% | 97% | +3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 2% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 20% | 14% | +6 |
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 Cvent Registration 82
- 2 Cvent Event Cloud 69.9
- 3 Authentik 69.1
- 4 OneTrust 68.2
- 5 WorkRamp 67.6
- 6 Frontegg 67.5
- 7 Showpad 66.5
- 8 Lucid 65.6
- 9 PropelAuth 64.4
- 10 Common Room 64.2
- 1 ClosedLoop AI 74.6
- 2 Common Room 63.8
- 3 Knak 58.8
- 4 Openwork 52.6
- 5 OneTrust 51.6
- 6 Hootsuite 49.5
- 7 Lucid 48.3
- 8 Showpad 48.2
- 9 Routebase 47.5
- 10 Tackle.io 46.7
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.