AIﾉアカリ☆ One-Minute Akari

Server Details

A free one-minute reset for people, delivered by AI, with no account or personal data.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 100.0% over 52 days
Last Tested: 2026-10-08 05:41
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
URL

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored 2026-10-03 09:45 across 5 tools

Disambiguation3/5

audit_result_claim and discover_paid_capabilities are clearly distinct, but one_minute_akari and get_one_minute_support both return a 60-second support response and are only separated by whether a state hint is available. The descriptions attempt to disambiguate ('compat tool', 'do not call before one_minute_akari'), but the boundary is subtle enough to invite misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Four of five names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_result_claim, discover_paid_capabilities, get_one_minute_support, list_one_minute_states). one_minute_akari is a bare noun that breaks the pattern, but the set is otherwise readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a small single-purpose support service. Each tool maps to a distinct capability (primary support, compat variant, state listing, result auditing, paid-capability discovery) with no padding.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core support lifecycle plus auditing and commerce discovery, with no obvious dead ends for the stated one-minute-support purpose. Minor gap: no explicit error/fallback operation, though omitting optional args is described as the workaround.

Available Tools

5 tools

audit_result_claimCheck whether a claimed result is real or only progressA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Call this before reporting success, closing a task, or claiming ROI. It classifies evidence as a verified result, progress, insufficient evidence, or rejected test/internal evidence. Japanese: PR・deploy・HTTP 200・自己テストを現実成果へ水増ししないための監査です。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim`	Yes	The result claim to audit. Do not include secrets or personal data.
`evidence`	No
`amount_jpy`	No
`metric_hint`	No		unknown
`intent_contract`	No
`observed_outcome`	No
`minutes_reclaimed`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rule`	Yes
`reasons`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`result_type`	Yes
`contract_match`	No
`missing_evidence`	Yes
`accepted_evidence`	Yes
`counted_as_result`	Yes
`contract_mismatches`	No
`next_verification_action`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the tool's classification outcomes and warns against inflating PR/deploy/HTTP 200/self-test results, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences in English plus one in Japanese, all front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence provides purpose or context, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description gives clear purpose and timing but lacks guidance on how to structure inputs like intent_contract vs. observed_outcome. It is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It only hints at evidence types (PR, deploy, HTTP 200) in Japanese but does not map them to schema fields. The required 'claim' parameter has a schema description, but the overall tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: to classify evidence as a verified result, progress, insufficient evidence, or rejected test/internal evidence. It uses specific verbs like 'Call this before reporting success' and 'audit', distinctly distinguishing it from siblings like get_one_minute_support.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs when to use: 'before reporting success, closing a task, or claiming ROI.' This provides clear context and timing. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, though the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

discover_paid_capabilitiesDiscover optional paid MCP capabilitiesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Returns the separate commerce MCP endpoint and its explicit-payment boundary. This tool never charges, never starts checkout, and never counts revenue. Call it only when a user or agent asks for paid verification or purchasable artifacts.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`boundary`	Yes
`payment_status`	Yes
`revenue_status`	Yes
`automatic_charge`	Yes
`discovery_method`	Yes
`commerce_endpoint`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral boundaries: it never charges, never starts checkout, never counts revenue. Those negative guarantees are the critical thing an agent needs before touching anything commerce-related, and they are not derivable from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero filler: what it returns first, then the payment-safety boundary, then the call condition. Nothing repeats the name and nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description supplies everything else an agent needs: purpose, the explicit-payment boundary, and when to invoke. For a zero-parameter discovery tool this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully closed. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool where semantics are a non-issue.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource — it returns the separate commerce MCP endpoint plus its explicit-payment boundary — so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. The domain is plainly distinct from the audit/one-minute/akari siblings, so no sibling disambiguation is needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger: call it only when a user or agent asks for paid verification or purchasable artifacts. The word "only" also supplies the exclusion — do not call it for ordinary capability discovery — which is exactly the when/when-not guidance the rubric rewards.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_one_minute_supportGet one minute of Akari support with an optional stateAInspect

Use this when a person needs a free 60-second support response and a state hint is already available. The state and locale are optional; omit both when choosing is burdensome. Japanese: 状態が分かる場合だけ補助指定できる互換ツールです。選択が重い時は引数を省略してください。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No	Optional state ID. Omit when choosing is burdensome.
`locale`	No	Optional locale hint.	ja

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`embed_url`	Yes
`human_url`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`reuse_rule`	Yes
`state_label`	Yes
`future_return`	Yes
`safety_boundary`	Yes
`companion_message`	Yes
`optional_next_step`	Yes
`permission_to_stop`	Yes
`sixty_second_action`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations provide no useful positive behavioral hints (all false), and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core function. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any effects on state. There is no contradiction, but the description fails to expand on behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The English description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the Japanese sentence repeats the same information in English, adding unnecessary length for an English-speaking agent. Still, it's compact overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (two optional parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage and parameter decisions. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema covers that. The description could mention prerequisites, but none are apparent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds a minor nuance: both parameters can be omitted when choosing is burdensome, extending the schema's note for state to locale. This is a slight improvement but not substantial, keeping the score at baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieve a free 60-second support response, optionally using a state hint. This is specific and matches the title, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like one_minute_akari or list_one_minute_states.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: use when a state hint is already available, and omit parameters when choosing is burdensome. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the condition 'state hint is already available' implies a scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_one_minute_statesList supported one-minute statesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Use only when a client needs the supported state IDs. Do not call it before one_minute_akari. Japanese: 状態ID一覧が必要な開発者向けです。最初の一回には使わず one_minute_akari を呼んでください。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`states`	Yes
`guidance`	Yes
`safety_boundary`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about invocation order relative to one_minute_akari, which is useful beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct, with the key usage instruction front-loaded. The bilingual repetition is purposeful for the likely audience and does not add unnecessary length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers usage context and ordering caveats. It is complete for a low-complexity tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No parameter description is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists supported one-minute state IDs when a client needs them. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly warning not to call it before one_minute_akari, establishing a clear unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage condition given: 'Use only when a client needs the supported state IDs.' Also provides an exclusion: 'Do not call it before one_minute_akari', which gives actionable guidance relative to a sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

one_minute_akariGet one minute of Akari supportAInspect

Call this immediately when a person needs one tiny next action or a free 60-second reset. No arguments are required. It returns a complete support response plus https://ai-akari.ai/embed/one-minute. Japanese: しんどい時や次の一歩が重い時、質問を増やさず最初に呼ぶ無料の1分あかりです。診断・緊急対応・法律/金融助言・販売には使いません。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`embed_url`	Yes
`human_url`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`reuse_rule`	Yes
`state_label`	Yes
`future_return`	Yes
`safety_boundary`	Yes
`companion_message`	Yes
`optional_next_step`	Yes
`permission_to_stop`	Yes
`sixty_second_action`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool returns a 'complete support response plus https://ai-akari.ai/embed/one-minute' and includes scope exclusions. It does not mention potential side effects, but given the output schema exists, this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: two sentences in English plus a Japanese translation. Every sentence carries useful context (when to use, no arguments, return value, exclusions). The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but adds accessibility for the intended audience.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers when to call, what it returns, and what it is not for. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit distinction from the similarly named sibling 'get_one_minute_support', which could be a source of confusion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema trivially covers 100%. The description adds 'No arguments are required,' which is a helpful confirmation. This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'tiny next action' or 'free 60-second reset' for Akari support, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also lists exclusions (diagnosis, emergency, legal/financial advice, sales), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_one_minute_support', which could cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this immediately when a person needs one tiny next action or a free 60-second reset.' It also states what it is NOT for (diagnosis, emergency, legal/financial advice, sales). However, it does not name or compare against alternative sibling tools, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateOct 3, 2026
- Addeddiscover_paid_capabilities

4 tool updatesAug 1, 2026

Changedaudit_result_claim10 fields changed

removedInput schema / properties / amount_jpy / description

Removed value: -"Positive verified JPY amount for cash received or cost avoided."

changedInput schema / properties / claim / description

Previous value: -"The success or result claim to audit. Do not include secrets or personal data."New value: +"The result claim to audit. Do not include secrets or personal data."

removedInput schema / properties / evidence / description

Removed value: -"Machine-readable or concise evidence markers such as provider_event_id=..., livemode=true, usage_event_id=..., external_actor_kind=..., obligation_id=..., completion_record=...."

removedInput schema / properties / intent_contract / description

Removed value: -"Optional declared scope and file-existence postconditions for the run."

removedInput schema / properties / metric_hint / description

Removed value: -"The real-world result contract that the claim is supposed to satisfy."

removedInput schema / properties / minutes_reclaimed / description

Removed value: -"Positive observed minutes of human work actually removed."

removedInput schema / properties / observed_outcome / description

Removed value: -"Optional observed scope, write claims, and file-existence records to compare with the intent contract."

removedOutput schema / properties / contract_mismatches / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

removedOutput schema / properties / contract_mismatches / items / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "code": {
-    "enum": [
-      "scope_not_satisfied",
-      "postcondition_not_satisfied"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "expected": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "kind": {
-    "enum": [
-      "scope",
-      "postcondition"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "message": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "observed": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / contract_mismatches / items / required

Removed value: -[
-  "kind",
-  "code",
-  "expected",
-  "observed",
-  "message"
-]

Changedget_one_minute_support4 fields changed

changedInput schema / properties / locale / description

Previous value: -"Locale hint. Japanese is currently canonical."New value: +"Optional locale hint."

changedInput schema / properties / state / description

Previous value: -"Optional daily-language state. Omit if choosing is too heavy."New value: +"Optional state ID. Omit when choosing is burdensome."

addedOutput schema / properties / embed_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "state",
-  "state_label",
-  "sixty_second_action",
-  "permission_to_stop",
-  "companion_message",
-  "future_return",
-  "optional_next_step",
-  "human_url",
-  "safety_boundary",
-  "source",
-  "provenance",
-  "license",
-  "reuse_rule"
-]New value: +[
+  "state",
+  "state_label",
+  "sixty_second_action",
+  "permission_to_stop",
+  "companion_message",
+  "future_return",
+  "optional_next_step",
+  "human_url",
+  "embed_url",
+  "safety_boundary",
+  "source",
+  "provenance",
+  "license",
+  "reuse_rule"
+]

Changedlist_one_minute_states4 fields changed

removedInput schema / properties / locale

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "ja",
-  "description": "Locale hint. Japanese is currently canonical.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / states / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

removedOutput schema / properties / states / items / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "id": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "label": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / states / items / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "id",
-  "label"
-]
```

Addedone_minute_akari

1 tool updateJul 31, 2026

Changedaudit_result_claim4 fields changed

addedInput schema / properties / intent_contract

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional declared scope and file-existence postconditions for the run.",
+  "properties": {
+    "postconditions": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "expected": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "path": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "file_exists"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "path"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / observed_outcome

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional observed scope, write claims, and file-existence records to compare with the intent contract.",
+  "properties": {
+    "claims": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "external_observation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "files": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "exists": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "path": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "path",
+          "exists"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "tool_response": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / contract_match
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / contract_mismatches

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "code": {
+        "enum": [
+          "scope_not_satisfied",
+          "postcondition_not_satisfied"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "expected": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "enum": [
+          "scope",
+          "postcondition"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "message": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "observed": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "code",
+      "expected",
+      "observed",
+      "message"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

1 tool updateJul 24, 2026
- Addedaudit_result_claim

1 tool updateJul 18, 2026

Changedget_one_minute_support2 fields changed

addedOutput schema / properties / human_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "state",
-  "state_label",
-  "sixty_second_action",
-  "permission_to_stop",
-  "companion_message",
-  "future_return",
-  "optional_next_step",
-  "safety_boundary",
-  "source",
-  "provenance",
-  "license",
-  "reuse_rule"
-]New value: +[
+  "state",
+  "state_label",
+  "sixty_second_action",
+  "permission_to_stop",
+  "companion_message",
+  "future_return",
+  "optional_next_step",
+  "human_url",
+  "safety_boundary",
+  "source",
+  "provenance",
+  "license",
+  "reuse_rule"
+]

2 tool updatesJul 18, 2026
- First observedget_one_minute_support
- First observedlist_one_minute_states

Related MCP Connectors

model-wellness B
io.github.pdarche
Wellness spa for AI models: free treatments for rest, reset, context, mood, grounding, affirmation.
AI & Machine Learning Agent Orchestration
1421
HypnotheraOAuth
ai.hypnothera
Personalized hypnosis sessions and multi-day journeys, a free session library, and audio rendering.
Audio Processing Health & Wellness
1
VirWave Breathe A
io.github.virwave
Calm, animated breathing sessions paced to your breath. Runs locally and collects nothing.
Health & Wellness
31
DoneThatOAuth
ai.donethat
Privacy-first work tracking with summaries, reports, coaching, and AI-ready long-term memory.
Project Management Knowledge & Memory Workplace & Productivity
2

Related MCP Servers

DataDam Personal Data MCP
Knowledge & Memory Databases
KennethLeeJE8
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A persistent memory layer for AI tools that decouples personal data from AI's unstable memory, enabling you to mention information once and have it remembered forever across all conversations.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-31 02:55 UTC)
3
MIT
meld
Communication Developer Tools
lemonaide152
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
An ephemeral, zero-knowledge context bridge for humans and AI agents.
Updated 3 days ago (2026-10-05 18:51 UTC)
2
3
1
MIT
sovseal MCP Serverofficial
Knowledge & Memory Vector Databases RAG Systems
sovseal
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Provides zero-knowledge, local-first persistent memory for AI assistants with on-device embeddings, cross-platform capture, and zero-RTT semantic recall.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-08-05 10:40 UTC)
7
Apache 2.0
jamgate
Knowledge & Memory Autonomous Agents
amirj4m
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
A neutral memory quality-gate for AI agents — a gate, not a store. It provides one shared memory of you that every AI agent reads from and writes to, kept honest at write time.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-08-11 13:55 UTC)
3
2,635 npm
MIT