A
license-
qualityF
maintenancePersistent semantic memory for AI agents using PostgreSQL and vector embeddings, enabling cross-session continuity and semantic search.
AGPL 3.0
agent-memory
by com.agishub
Server Details
Persistent semantic memory for AI agents: store and recall text by meaning (RAG). x402
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- agishub/agishub-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- AgisHub MCP Server
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one for storing data and one for retrieving it. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (memory_search and memory_upsert) using the same prefix and clear action words.
Tool Count4/5
Two tools is minimal but perfectly appropriate for a focused memory server covering the essential store and retrieve operations. It could benefit from a delete tool but is not over- or underwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The core RAG operations (store and retrieve) are covered. Missing a delete or list all tool is a minor gap, but the main workflow is complete for typical use.
Available Tools
2 toolsmemory_searchAInspect
Semantically search a memory collection (namespace) and return the most relevant stored entries. The retrieval half of RAG.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural-language query; returns the most semantically similar stored entries. | |
| top_k | No | How many results to return (default 5). | |
| namespace | Yes | The namespace to search within (the same key used on upsert). |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only semantic search, which is clear, but it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description minimally addresses behavioral traits.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The key purpose and context (RAG retrieval half) are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately states that it returns relevant stored entries. It covers the essential behavior given the parameter richness and sibling context, but could mention result format or pagination.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'natural-language query') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('search'), resource ('memory collection/namespace'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'memory_upsert' by calling it 'the retrieval half of RAG'. This directly differentiates from the write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading via 'retrieval half of RAG', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
memory_upsertAInspect
Store a piece of text in a persistent, searchable memory collection (namespace). Embedded and indexed for later semantic recall.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional stable id to update an existing entry; auto-generated if omitted. | |
| text | Yes | The text/content to store and make searchable. | |
| namespace | Yes | Your collection key — groups and isolates your memories. Treat it like a secret: anyone with it can read/write this collection. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses persistence, searchability, embedding, indexing, and the security implication of the namespace. However, it does not mention any side effects or error conditions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words.
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?
The description explains what happens to the text (stored, embedded, indexed) and identifies the namespace as a key grouping mechanism. It lacks details on updates via the optional id parameter, but for a simple upsert it is sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate.
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 action ('Store'), the resource ('memory collection'), and the purpose ('for later semantic recall'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'memory_search' which handles searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for persisting text for search but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenancePersistent long-term memory for AI agents — semantic recall across Claude, Cursor, ChatGPT & MCP.1273517MIT
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenancePersistent memory for AI agents with semantic memory, belief tracking, and dream consolidation, enabling cross-session knowledge retention.7850MIT
- AlicenseCqualityCmaintenancePersistent semantic memory for MCP-compatible agents, enabling them to remember and recall text, audio, and documents across sessions.1066MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.