No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 3 tools
memory_write is clearly the append/write tool and memory_get is the general read tool, so the main risk is between memory_get and memory_context, which both retrieve evidence. However, memory_context is explicitly scoped to bounded subject search while memory_get handles IDs, views, schemas, and continuation, so an agent can usually pick correctly.
memory_write and memory_get follow a consistent memory_<verb> pattern, but memory_context is a noun/area rather than a verb, breaking the pattern. The shared prefix and lowercase snake_case keep it readable and only mildly inconsistent.
Three tools is well within the ideal range for a memory server: one write path, one general read path, and one contextual search path. The large number of operations inside memory_write is a design choice, but as a tool count the set is appropriately scoped.
The append-only write tool covers records, sources, plans, decisions, checkpoints, and reviews, and memory_get exposes rich views including coverage and reviews. The only notable gap is that lesson approval is referenced as a separate lesson_review operation that is not present in the MCP tool set, leaving a minor lifecycle dead end.