Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
IncomeStreamSurfer

Roo Code Memory Bank MCP Server

by IncomeStreamSurfer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

RooコードメモリバンクMCPサーバー

このプロジェクトは、Roo Code Memory Bankシステムのコア機能をモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバーとして実装します。これにより、AIアシスタントは構造化されたMCPツールを使用してファイルベースのメモリバンクとやり取りすることで、セッション間でプロジェクトのコンテキストを維持できるようになります。

特徴

この MCP サーバーは次のツールを提供します。

  • initialize_memory_bank : 初期テンプレートを使用して、 memory-bank/ディレクトリと標準.mdファイル ( productContext.md 、 activeContext.md 、 progress.md 、 decisionLog.md 、 systemPatterns.md ) を作成します。

    • 入力: (オプション) { "project_brief_content": string }

    • 出力: { "status": "success" | "error", "messages"?: string[], "message"?: string }

  • check_memory_bank_status : memory-bank/ディレクトリが存在するかどうかを確認し、その中の.mdファイルを一覧表示します。

    • 入力: {}

    • 出力: { "exists": boolean, "files": string[] }

  • read_memory_bank_file : 指定されたメモリ バンク ファイルの完全な内容を読み取ります。

    • 入力: { "file_name": string }

    • 出力: { "content": string }またはエラー オブジェクト。

  • append_memory_bank_entry : 指定されたファイルに、タイムスタンプ付きの新しいエントリを追加します。オプションで、特定のマークダウンヘッダーを付けて追加します。ファイルが存在しない場合は作成します。

    • 入力: { "file_name": string, "entry": string, "section_header"?: string }

    • 出力: { "status": "success" | "error", "message": string }

Related MCP server: engrams

前提条件

  • Node.js (v18以降を推奨)

  • npm (通常はNode.jsに含まれています)

  • MCP サーバーを管理および起動できる MCP クライアント環境 (Cline で使用されるものなど)。

インストール

  1. リポジトリをクローンします。

    git clone https://github.com/IncomeStreamSurfer/roo-code-memory-bank-mcp-server.git
cd roo-code-memory-bank-mcp-server

  2. 依存関係をインストールします:

    npm install

  3. プロジェクトをビルドします。

    npm run build

    これにより、TypeScript コードがdist/ディレクトリ内の JavaScript にコンパイルされます。

構成（Cline MCP クライアント用）

このサーバーを AI アシスタント (Cline など) で使用できるようにするには、その構成を MCP 設定ファイル (例: cline_mcp_settings.json ) に追加する必要があります。

設定ファイルでmcpServersオブジェクトを見つけて、次のエントリを追加します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    // ... other server configurations ...

    "roo-code-memory-bank-mcp": {
      "autoApprove": [
        "initialize_memory_bank",
        "check_memory_bank_status",
        "read_memory_bank_file",
        "append_memory_bank_entry"
      ],
      "disabled": false,
      "timeout": 60,
      "command": "node", // Or "cmd.exe" with "/c node ..." on Windows if needed
      "args": [
        // IMPORTANT: Replace this path with the actual absolute path
        // to the compiled index.js file on your system
        "/path/to/your/cloned/repo/roo-code-memory-bank-mcp-server/dist/index.js"
      ],
      "env": {},
      "transportType": "stdio"
    }

    // ... other server configurations ...
  }
}

重要： /path/to/your/cloned/repo/リポジトリをクローンしたマシンへの正しい絶対パスに置き換えてください。パス区切り文字がオペレーティングシステムに合っていることを確認してください（例：Windowsではバックスラッシュ「 \を使用）。

サーバーの実行

通常、サーバーを手動で起動する必要はありません。MCPクライアント（Clineなど）は、ツールのいずれかが初めて呼び出されたときに、設定ファイルに指定されたcommandとargsを使用してサーバーを自動的に起動します。

手動でテストしたい場合は、プロジェクトディレクトリからnpm startを実行できます。

使用法

AIアシスタントは定義されたツールを使用してサーバーとやり取りします。典型的なワークフローは以下のとおりです。

  1. メモリバンクのステータスを確認しています ( check_memory_bank_status )。

  2. 必要に応じて初期化します ( initialize_memory_bank )。

  3. コンテキストを取得するために関連ファイルを読み取ります ( read_memory_bank_file )。

  4. 決定が下されるか、進捗が発生すると、エントリを追加します ( append_memory_bank_entry )。

サーバー プロセスが開始されるディレクトリと同じディレクトリにmemory-bank/ディレクトリが作成されます (MCP クライアント構成を介して起動された場合、このプロジェクト ディレクトリのルートになります)。

カスタム指示

これらの指示をRoo内で設定します

必要に応じてMCPを使用する必要があります

特定の MCP フローがあります:

context7 を使用して、このプロセスに必要な関連ドキュメントを見つけます。関連する知識は、関連するサブタスクに必ずフィードしてください。不明な点がある場合は、常に context7 を使用して重要なドキュメントを調査してください。+ を検索するには、Google マップの MCP を使用します。これにより、タスクを実行するために必要な基本的なビジネスを見つけることができます。Brave Search MCP を使用して、スクレイピングする URL を検索します。fetch_txt および fetch_markdown で fetch mcp を使用して、ページ上のテキストと画像を検索し、JSON ファイルに変換して詳細な情報を作成します。openrouter 検索を使用して、トピックやレビューなどの一般的な感情を検索します。

roo-code-memory-bank-mcpサーバーを利用してプロジェクト コンテキストを維持します。

  • タスクまたは重要なサブタスクの開始時に、 check_memory_bank_status使用します。

  • メモリ バンクが存在する場合 ( exists: true )、関連ファイル (例: productContext.md 、 activeContext.md ) に対してread_memory_bank_fileを使用して、現在のプロジェクト コンテキストを読み込みます。

  • この意味深いコンテキストを計画と実行に組み込みます。

  • 重要な決定、進捗状況の更新、またはアーキテクチャの変更を行う場合は、 append_memory_bank_entryを使用して適切なファイル ( decisionLog.md 、 progress.mdなど) に情報を記録し、コンテキストの永続性を確保します。

  • メモリ バンクが存在しない場合は、プロジェクトに適している場合は、 initialize_memory_bank使用を検討してください。

Available Tools

4 tools
append_memory_bank_entryC

Appends a new, timestamped entry to a specified file, optionally under a specific markdown header.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entryYesThe content of the entry to append.
file_nameYesThe name of the memory bank file to append to.
section_headerNo(Optional) The exact markdown header (e.g., '## Decision') to append under.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool appends with timestamping and optional header placement, but lacks details on permissions, file format constraints, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or mutation effects (e.g., overwriting). This is inadequate for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key optional feature. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, return values, or interaction with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in context.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'section_header' is for markdown headers and 'entry' is content, but doesn't provide syntax examples or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Appends'), resource ('to a specified file'), and key details ('new, timestamped entry', 'optionally under a specific markdown header'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'initialize_memory_bank' (which likely creates files) or 'read_memory_bank_file' (which reads content), missing full sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new files), or comparisons to siblings like 'initialize_memory_bank' for setup or 'read_memory_bank_file' for retrieval, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

check_memory_bank_statusA

Checks if the memory-bank directory exists and lists the .md files within it.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (checking directory existence and listing .md files), which is helpful, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the directory doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or output format details. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Checks if...') and includes all relevant details (directory existence and file listing) in a compact form, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It explains what the tool does, but without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., whether it returns a boolean, list, or structured data). For a status-checking tool, more information on output behavior would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters to explain, this meets expectations, but a perfect score is reserved for cases where the description adds value beyond an already complete schema, which isn't applicable here.

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 with specific verbs ('checks if... exists' and 'lists... files') and identifies the resource ('memory-bank directory' and '.md files'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status checking rather than appending, initializing, or reading specific files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 context by mentioning what the tool does (checking existence and listing files), which suggests it's for verifying the memory bank's state. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'initialize_memory_bank' or 'read_memory_bank_file', and doesn't specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions somewhat ambiguous.

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

initialize_memory_bankB

Creates the memory-bank directory and standard .md files with initial templates.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_brief_contentNo(Optional) Content from projectBrief.md to pre-fill productContext.md

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool creates directories and files, it doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether this is idempotent (e.g., what happens if the memory bank already exists), permission requirements, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs file system operations.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (file system creation with templates), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like idempotency or error handling. With no structured fields to rely on, the agent would need more information for robust usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high and there's only one parameter, the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'initial templates' provides slight additional context about the tool's behavior, justifying a score of 4.

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: 'Creates the memory-bank directory and standard .md files with initial templates.' This specifies the verb ('Creates') and resources ('memory-bank directory and standard .md files'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_memory_bank_status' or 'read_memory_bank_file', which would require a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the memory bank must not already exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'append_memory_bank_entry'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

read_memory_bank_fileC

Reads the full content of a specified memory bank file.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_nameYesThe name of the memory bank file (e.g., 'productContext.md')

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reads') but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), or output format (e.g., plain text, structured data). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases or output format, which are crucial for a read operation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'file_name' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Reads') and resource ('full content of a specified memory bank file'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_memory_bank_status' or 'append_memory_bank_entry', which might involve reading or checking content in different ways.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for retrieving entire files versus checking status or appending entries, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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. 4 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedappend_memory_bank_entry
    • First observedcheck_memory_bank_status
    • First observedinitialize_memory_bank
    • First observedread_memory_bank_file
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

A3.6/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: append adds entries, check verifies directory status, initialize sets up the structure, and read retrieves content. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool without confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., append_memory_bank_entry, check_memory_bank_status), with clear and descriptive verbs. There are no deviations in naming conventions, ensuring predictability and readability.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing a memory bank system. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function (setup, verification, reading, writing), and the count is neither too sparse nor excessive for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover core CRUD-like operations for a memory bank: initialize (create), check (status), read (retrieve), and append (update/add). A minor gap is the lack of a delete or modify tool for removing or editing entries, but agents can work around this with append for updates.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches