Need help with your APIs? I offer API discovery, governance & evangelism services. Explore services →
API Evangelist API Evangelist
Discovery
Learnings
Guidance
Toolbox
Alignment
API Evangelist LLC

Netcracker

Netcracker Technology is a Waltham, Massachusetts-based BSS/OSS and digital business software vendor and a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC Corporation. It sells cloud BSS, digital commerce and monetization, convergent charging, service and network orchestration, and API management and integration software to communications service providers worldwide — it is a supplier to carriers rather than a carrier itself, sitting one layer behind the operator in the telecom value chain and never touching a public developer directly. Netcracker is a long-standing TM Forum participant, claims the TM Forum Platinum Badge for Open API and "Ready for ODA" certification for its BSS/OSS portfolio, and contributed conformance toolkits to the TM Forum Open API program. Its API posture toward the outside world is honestly partner-gated: netcracker.com publishes no developer portal (developer., developers., docs., api. subdomains do not resolve; /developer, /developers and /api all return 404), no product OpenAPI is downloadable, and every commercial API — the TM Forum Open APIs its products implement — reaches integrators only through a customer or partner engagement. The one genuinely public, self-serve API surface Netcracker publishes is Qubership, its open-source cloud platform at github.com/Netcracker and netcracker.github.io, which ships real, downloadable OpenAPI contracts for its APIHUB API registry, integration, messaging and database services. On CAMARA, Netcracker names the standard in product marketing alongside TM Forum, MEF, ETSI, 3GPP and O-RAN and says CSPs can monetize "plug and play developer APIs, such as those from CAMARA" — but no CAMARA API is implemented, specified or callable anywhere in its public surface. That is a positioning statement, not an implementation.

agent native

Real signal across most facets with visible, nameable gaps — the contract exists but is thin, or the portal is good while governance and commercial terms are absent.

Kin Score

API Evangelist profiles Netcracker the way a machine reads it — 10 machine-readable artifacts across 4 APIs, pulled from the provider's own public surface and indexed so a developer, an analyst, or an AI agent can evaluate it against every other provider on the network.

Every provider in the network is reduced to the same set of machine-readable artifacts — OpenAPI contracts, event specifications, GraphQL schemas, runnable collections, pricing and rate-limit signals, security posture, OAuth scopes, and the agent surfaces (MCP servers and skills) that let software drive the API on its own. We profile them because the interface is the part of a company you can actually inspect: it is a truer signal of what a provider does than any marketing page. From those artifacts we compute the Kin Score — Netcracker scores 49.6/100 (developing), with a separate agent-readiness read of 78/100 (agent native). The full breakdown is below, followed by every artifact we hold — each card links through to its machine-readable definition on apis.io.

Kin Score

This is the API Evangelist rating — a single, repeatable read computed from the artifacts on this page. Green fill is points earned; the red track is points possible, so every bar shows earned-versus-possible at a glance.

Kin Score Kin Score How this is scored →
scored 2026-07-27 · rubric v0.5
Composite quality — 49.6/100 · developing
Contract Quality 14.2 / 25
Developer Ergonomics 15.2 / 20
Commercial Clarity 7.4 / 20
Operational Transparency 4.1 / 13
Governance 0.0 / 12
Discoverability 8.8 / 10
Agent readiness — 78/100 · agent native
Machine-Readable Contract 18 / 18
Agentic Access Contract 15 / 15
MCP Server 12 / 12
Machine-Readable Auth 10 / 10
Idempotency 9 / 9
Stable Error Semantics 8 / 8
Request/Response Examples 0 / 7
Rate-Limit Signaling 0 / 7
Typed Event Surface 0 / 6
Agent Skills 5 / 5
Well-Known Catalog 4 / 4
Consent & Bot Identity 0 / 3

How we profile Netcracker

Each block below is one kind of artifact we hold for Netcracker. For each we say what it is and why it earns a place in the profile, then list every one we've indexed — capped at two rows, scroll within the panel for the rest.

APIs 4

Each API is captured as its own OpenAPI definition — every operation, parameter, and response. This is the single most useful machine-readable description of what an API does, and it's what lets us score, lint, mock, and generate against it without asking the provider for anything.

Individual APIs this provider publishes, each with its own machine-readable definition.

Qubership APIHUB Registry API

The external, public-facing API contract for APIHUB — Netcracker's open-source API registry and developer portal product. Covers package and catalog operations, publication work...

Qubership APIHUB System Administrators API

The external administration API contract for APIHUB, covering technical administration operations — package transitions, system operations, role management and administrator man...

Qubership MaaS (Messaging as a Service) API

The REST API for Qubership MaaS, Netcracker's open-source messaging-as-a-service component that provisions and manages Kafka topics and RabbitMQ virtual hosts for microservices ...

Qubership DBaaS Aggregator API

The REST API for Qubership DBaaS, Netcracker's open-source Database as a Service aggregator. It collects requests for managed databases and routes them to the appropriate databa...

MCP Servers 1

Model Context Protocol servers expose these APIs directly to AI agents. We profile them because agent-native access is the fastest-growing way this provider's capabilities actually get used.

Model Context Protocol servers that expose these APIs to AI agents.

netcracker-mcp.yml

MCP SERVER

Security Posture 4

Authentication, domain security, vulnerability disclosure, and trust-center signals — the evidence that a provider takes security seriously enough to document it. We profile it because you can't govern what you can't see.

Authentication, domain security, vulnerability disclosure, and trust-center signals.

Netcracker Authentication

apiKey/http · 6 schemes

SECURITY

Netcracker Domain Security

TLSv1.2 · HSTS · DMARC

SECURITY

Netcracker Vulnerability Disclosure

Hackerone · security.txt · contact published

SECURITY

Netcracker Trust Center

PCI DSS, ISO 27001, ISO 27018, ISO 22301, SOC reporting

SECURITY

Agentic Access 1

An x-agentic-access contract marks which operations are safe for an agent to run on its own and which need a human in the loop. It is the difference between an API an agent can use and one it can use safely.

Recommended x-agentic-access execution contracts for AI agents.

Netcracker Agentic Access

276 operations · 137 acting · 36 human-in-the-loop

276 operations · 137 acting

AGENTIC

Resources

Every other property we hold for Netcracker — documentation, portals, status pages, policies, and corporate surface — grouped by the job it does, following the integrator's arc from getting started to running in production.

Get Started 2

Portal, sign-up, and the first successful call

Documentation 1

Reference material describing how the API behaves

Commercial 2

Pricing, plans, and the legal terms of use

Company 3

The organization behind the API

Other 3

Properties that don't map to a standard resource type

← All providers · Data indexed from github.com/api-evangelist/netcracker · machine-readable index on apis.io