mymemory-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to mymemory-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA portable MCP server providing a shared intelligent memory system for any MCP-compatible AI tool, enabling storage, retrieval, extraction, and governance of memories across sessions.18 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA private, self-hosted MCP server that wraps a retrieval pipeline over your own data, enabling trusted AI agents to access and manage your personal memory through standard MCP tools.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA portable self-hosted memory layer for AI tools, storing context, memories, and handoffs for access from any MCP-compatible client.17 npmMIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceLocal-first MCP server for governed AI memory where agents propose memories and humans approve them, with optional cloud sync.61-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA personal memory MCP server that stores and retrieves conversation memories, enabling AI agents to recall past discussions, promises, and preferences using natural language.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenancePersistent memory infrastructure for AI agents, enabling cross-session recall and autonomous memory evolution via an MCP server.1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have distinct purposes: get_context (retrieve full vault), search (find specific entries), and propose (add new entries). While get_context and search both read data, their purposes are clearly separated (bulk fetch vs. targeted lookup), and propos e is clearly a write operation. No meaningful ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent mymemory_<verb> pattern: get_context, search, propose. The verbs are uniform and descriptive, and each name clearly signals its operation (retrieval, lookup, and write). The mymemory_ prefix consistently scopes the namespace.
Three tools is on the thin side but understandable for a personal memory vault: fetch, search, and write. The scope is narrow enough that three tools could work, though one might expect an explicit update/delete mechanism. It's at the lower boundary of reasonable.
The vault supports retrieval (get_context), search, and creation (propose, gated by PENDING approval). However, there's no tool to update or delete existing active entries, nor to approve the pending queue, meaning maintenance of the vault is delegated entirely to the human in the app. This leaves some lifecycle gaps beyond the core read/write flow.