Skip to main content
Glama
CodeAbra

iai-personal-memory-engine

by CodeAbra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to iai-personal-memory-engine

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Project Brain

      myczh-1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A local MCP memory server that gives AI assistants durable project memory across coding sessions, storing context, changes, and decisions.
      5 npm
      1
      MIT

    • memory-bank-mcp

      diaz3618
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that gives AI assistants persistent memory across sessions. It stores project context, decisions, and progress in structured markdown files as well as a knowledge graph and sequential thinking for better memory storage.
      36
      23 npm
      1
      MIT

    • Hindsight

      LeoYueDev
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Open-source MCP server that gives AI coding assistants persistent memory, recording conversations and file changes to build user profiles and provide context across sessions.
      25 npm
      MIT

    • Epiphany

      GATSV-tech
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local MCP server that provides a shared, private memory for multiple AI tools, enabling cross-model recall and automatic session ingestion.
      31 npm
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 15 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The set has multiple recall-flavored tools (memory_recall, memory_search, memory_recall_structural, memory_temporal_recall, claim_check), but each description emphasizes a different cue type or output contract. The only notable risk is choosing between memory_recall and memory_temporal_recall for time-bounded verbatim queries, but the descriptions still distinguish them.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Core memory operations use the memory_<verb> pattern consistently, but the convention is mixed across non-core tools: bare nouns (topology), noun_adjective (episodes_recent, curiosity_pending), verb_noun (schema_list, events_query), and verb pairs (profile_get_set). Names are readable individually, but they do not follow a single cohesive convention.

    Tool Count4/5

    Fifteen tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, and most operations have a genuine purpose. However, several recall variants and diagnostic read-only tools could potentially be consolidated without making the server less clear.

    Completeness4/5

    The memory lifecycle is well covered: capture, recall variants, contradiction, reinforcement, consolidation, profiling, and diagnostics are all present. There is no hard-delete operation, but the descriptions indicate this is intentional (contradicted records are marked, never deleted), so the gap is design-driven rather than accidental.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessWithin a week

    Resources