Verification
VerificationsVerification
Providers using this tag (42)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 15 Limited public surface area
Emerging 6 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (114)
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 7 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 23 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 40 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 38 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (94)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Verification” 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 94 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 42 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Verification, 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 | 35.3 | 20.1 | +15.2 | 42 |
| Operational Transparency | 25.1 | 14 | +11.1 | 42 |
| Access Clarity | 35.5 | 26.5 | +9 | 42 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 32.1 | 23.4 | +8.7 | 42 |
| Discoverability | 66.2 | 61 | +5.2 | 42 |
| Contract Governance | 10.5 | 6.5 | +4 | 42 |
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) | 12% | 10% | +2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 10% | 13% | -3 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 11% | +3 |
| Security | 100% | 96% | +4 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 31% | 13% | +18 |
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 Messagebird 92.1
- 2 Svix 80.4
- 3 Twilio 73.5
- 4 Aervik Labs 57.7
- 5 Sinch 57.2
- 6 Telstra 55.1
- 7 Truework 55.1
- 8 Doximity 54.6
- 9 Goodstack 51.8
- 10 Vonage 51
- 1 Messagebird 68.9
- 2 CharityAPI 51.7
- 3 Svix 49.4
- 4 Goodstack 41.5
- 5 Twilio 40.2
- 6 Abstract API Phone Validation 35.4
- 7 Doximity 34.7
- 8 ProofDraw 33.2
- 9 Truework 32.8
- 10 Sinch 29.1
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.