Sensors
Providers using this tag (116)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 11 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 18 Limited public surface area
Emerging 29 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 55 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (27)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (17)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Sensors” 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.
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 107 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Sensors, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 58.3 | 58.1 | +0.2 | 107 |
| Contract Governance | 5.7 | 6.3 | -0.6 | 107 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 21.6 | 23.2 | -1.6 | 107 |
| Operational Transparency | 10.1 | 13.7 | -3.6 | 107 |
| Access Clarity | 21 | 26.5 | -5.5 | 107 |
| Contract Quality | 11.1 | 17.6 | -6.5 | 107 |
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% | 14% | -5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 12% | -10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 16% | 11% | +5 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 2% | 14% | -12 |
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 The Things Network / The Things Stack 79.2
- 2 Kontakt.io 61.4
- 3 ThingSpeak 59.2
- 4 30MHz 51.4
- 5 Verkada 50.5
- 6 Sofar Ocean 46.6
- 7 Elemental Machines 45.6
- 8 Picarro 45.5
- 9 Butlr 45.3
- 10 Nortech 45
- 1 Kontakt.io 50.5
- 2 Picogrid 36.2
- 3 The Things Network / The Things Stack 33.7
- 4 Elemental Machines 33.6
- 5 Sofar Ocean 32.7
- 6 Tank Utility 31.5
- 7 Picarro 30.8
- 8 Polar 30.6
- 9 Bitfinder 27.3
- 10 Verkada 26.1
Coverage caveat. 104 of 107 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.