marm-memory
MARM is a local-first persistent multi-agent memory layer that gives AI agents a structured, searchable, and long-lived memory store across sessions.
Smart Memory Recall (marm_smart_recall) — Search stored memories using hybrid retrieval (semantic similarity + keyword/FTS/BM25). Supports auto-detection of syntax-heavy queries, semantic re-ranking, cross-session search, and project/platform/detail-level filtering.
Structured Log Writing (marm_log_entry) — Write timestamped, topic-tagged log entries to named sessions, with automatic session switching via prefixed entries.
Log Browsing (marm_log_show) — List all sessions with entry counts, or display entries within a specific session ordered by date.
Notebook Management (marm_notebook) — Save, retrieve, activate, and manage reusable named entries (code snippets, instructions, configs) with add, use, show, status, and clear actions.
Session Summarization (marm_summary) — Generate a formatted markdown context block from a session's log entries, ideal for restoring context in new chats.
Memory Compaction (marm_compaction) — Identify, stage, review, and apply consolidation of duplicate/redundant memories into summaries to reduce context bloat (candidates → stage → review → apply/discard).
Deletion (marm_delete) — Delete individual log entries, entire log sessions, or notebook entries.
Codebase Intelligence (HTTP only) — Index repositories, look up symbols and source code, trace call paths, get architecture overviews, and analyze change impact.
Monitoring Dashboard — A local web UI at /dashboard for browsing, searching, editing memories, managing sessions/notebooks, and viewing the write queue in real time.
Deployment & Scale — Supports solo, swarm, and multi-agent modes with configurable rate limits, serialized writes (SQLite WAL), and HTTP/STDIO transports.
Community support and updates through the MARM Discord server for users and contributors
Containerized deployment option with health monitoring and production-ready configuration for scalable memory server hosting
Built on FastAPI framework to provide MCP-compliant HTTP endpoints for memory operations and semantic search capabilities
Official repository hosting with community contributions, documentation, and project collaboration features
Appears in Google AI Overview results for AI memory protocol queries, demonstrating search visibility and recognition
Package distribution through PyPI for easy installation via pip with version management and dependency handling
Native Python implementation requiring Python 3.10+ with semantic search and vector embedding capabilities
Persistent storage backend with WAL mode and connection pooling for memory data, sessions, and semantic embeddings
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@marm-memorywhat did we decide about the project timeline yesterday?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Contributions welcome! Browse open issues to contribute, or join the MARM Discord to share workflows, get setup help, and connect with other builders.
Table of Contents
Related MCP server: Memory Crystal MCP Server
Quick Start
Install and initialize with your preferred agent profiles:
pip install marm-mcp-server
marm-memory init --g-claude --g-codex --g-geminiAlso available: --g-qwen and --g-kiro. Run without flags to install into your current project folder instead of home
Hand off to your AI companion. Tell your agent:
"Use the marm-init skill to set up MARM."
Interact: Your agent will handle the entire setup (Python/Docker, HTTP/STDIO, keys, and client configs) interactively right inside your chat.
Manual setup
Prefer to wire it up yourself:
Replace "agent" with your client’s CLI command (for example, claude, gemini, or qwen). For Codex, use codex mcp add marm-memory --url http://localhost:8001/mcp instead.
If you are... | Start the server | Connect your MCP client |
Solo developer / researcher |
|
|
Private local STDIO user |
|
|
Multiple agents sharing memory |
|
|
Private high-throughput swarm |
|
|
Trusted private lab/server |
|
|
⚡ Fastest HTTP Startup: Run marm-memory fast-start-http to spin up the local runtime, launch the console, and open it in your browser immediately.
🖥️ Web Console: Run marm-memory console to view the local UI app instantly (no Node.js required).
⚙️ Lifecycle Management: Manage the background daemon using status, logs --follow, restart, and stop.
💡 Quick Flags: Use --no-console or --no-browser to restrict startups. Run marm-memory --help for full command lists.
Why MARM Memory
Your AI forgets everything. MARM Memory doesn't.
marm-memory gives your agents a private, shared memory for the context that normally gets lost between chats: decisions, research, fixes, notes, and project history. Switch from Claude Code to Codex or Gemini without losing the context already gathered.
It brings three things together:
🧠 Core Memory (7 tools) stores conversations, notes, notebook entries, and summaries so they stay searchable.
💻 Code Graph (5 tools) maps your repository so agents can find symbols, follow code paths, and understand the project without rereading it all. Point it at a repo once and it keeps itself current as you work.
🧩 Concept Graph (2 tools) connects people, decisions, errors, and ideas from your stored memories, with links back to relevant code when available. It builds itself as you store memories.
All 14 tools work over HTTP and STDIO. Your agents share the same local memory across sessions instead of starting from scratch each time. The bundled Console App provides a browsable view of Memories, the Knowledge Graph, and Indexed Projects, including progress for graph builds and repository indexing. Indexing a repository creates its independent Code Graph, which you can explore from Knowledge Graph → Code Explorer even before storing any memories.
How It Works
Layer | What it does | Why it matters |
Memory model | Sessions, structured logs, notebooks, summaries, and semantic memories | Keeps project history searchable instead of trapped in one chat |
Scale layer | SQLite WAL mode, connection pooling, serialized write queue, and HTTP rate-limit presets | Lets one server support solo use, multi-agent work, and swarm-style bursts |
Intelligence layer | FTS filter, semantic re-rank, bounded semantic fallback, auto-classification, write-time consolidation, and compaction candidates | Keeps recall useful as memory grows instead of letting duplicates pile up |
Code graph layer | Repo indexing, symbol lookup, call tracing, architecture overview, and change-impact analysis | Gives agents project structure without rereading the whole codebase |
Concept graph layer | Entity and relationship extraction from stored memories, with links back into the code graph | Connects decisions, errors, tools, and people across sessions instead of leaving them as flat text |
Token layer | Lightweight 7-tool core surface (14 total with bundled graph tools), semantic re-rank before retrieval, and write-time deduplication | Reduces tokens sent to the model on every recall and cost stays predictable as memory scales |
Deployment layer | Pip, Docker, STDIO, HTTP, and managed | Lets you run private local memory or shared multi-agent memory with the same MCP surface |
See Performance & Scaling Benchmarks for retrieval latency, concurrency, and write-cost numbers, and Architecture & Internals for the mechanisms behind each layer.
Runtime CLI Commands
marm-memory is the local runtime manager installed with the Python package. These are the normal operational commands; use marm-memory <command> --help for flags and command-specific examples.
Daily runtime work
marm-memory fast-start-http # start HTTP, Console, and open the browser
marm-memory start # start or reuse the managed HTTP runtime
marm-memory start --profile swarm # shared multi-agent preset
marm-memory stop # stop the managed runtime safely
marm-memory restart # restart the managed runtime
marm-memory status # inspect runtime, database, queue, and graph status
marm-memory logs --follow # follow bounded runtime logs
marm-memory console # start or reuse the bundled local ConsoleTransports and setup
marm-memory http # run HTTP in the foreground
marm-memory stdio # run the strict local MCP STDIO transport
marm-memory init # install the MARM skill into detected agents (project scan)
marm-memory init --g-claude # install the skill into the home-folder claude directory
marm-memory doctor # diagnose the local install
marm-memory key init # create or reuse ~/.marm/.env without displaying the key
marm-memory key path # print the managed key-file path
marm-memory key reveal # explicitly display the managed key
marm-memory console --import-key # open an authenticated local Console session
marm-memory upgrade --check # compare the installed package with PyPI
marm-memory uninstall # preview package removal; always preserves ~/.marmKnowledge, projects, and maintenance
marm-memory knowledge status # Indexers, models, and how far behind automatic indexing is
marm-memory knowledge build --all # Rebuild the whole concept graph (new memories index themselves)
marm-memory knowledge auto off # Stop indexing memories automatically (on, off, status)
marm-memory projects list # List all tracked workspaces
marm-memory projects index <path> # Add a repo to the code graph (kept current after that)
marm-memory projects status # Inspect target repo graph readiness
marm-memory projects auto off # Stop re-indexing repos automatically (on, off, status)
marm-memory maintenance status # Check internal database optimization state
marm-memory maintenance embeddings migrate # Upgrade old 384-dim vectors to 512-dim
marm-memory maintenance chunks rechunk # Recalibrate long memory text splitsDocker commands are documented separately below because they require explicit data mounts, network exposure, and key-handling choices.
Performance & Scaling Benchmarks
MARM is tuned for fast recall first, even as memory grows and long memories are chunked behind the scenes.
These measurements use the fastembed-backed jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-small-en encoder and a throwaway local SQLite database. Every timed path calls the shipped MARMMemory code, not a benchmark-local reimplementation. Sections 1-4 are timings from a single run of scripts/benchmarking/performance/bench_hotpath.py on local hardware; absolute milliseconds vary by machine, so treat the scaling shape as the signal. Section 5 is a separate accuracy benchmark (run_eval.py) measuring retrieval rather than speed, and its latest row is a controlled before and after, explained there.
1. Retrieval Latency Scaling
End-to-end recall_similar latency (includes query encoding).
Session Size ($N$) | Min Latency | Median Latency | p95 Latency |
N = 100 | 7.4 ms | 7.9 ms | 9.4 ms |
N = 250 | 11.9 ms | 13.5 ms | 15.4 ms |
N = 500 | 10.9 ms | 11.8 ms | 13.4 ms |
N = 1,000 | 13.3 ms | 13.5 ms | 15.6 ms |
N = 2,000 | 17.5 ms | 18.2 ms | 19.6 ms |
N = 4,000 | 23.8 ms | 25.9 ms | 30.9 ms |
Run-to-run variance at small $N$ is larger than the gap between adjacent sizes, which is why N = 250 reads slower than N = 500 here. Treat the trend from N = 1,000 upward as the real signal.
2. Encoder + Concurrency
Cold model load:
893msWarm encode: median
3.8ms, p954.3msConcurrent recall: 10 gathered recalls completed in
151.5msvs176.0msserial (gather/serial = 0.86). Do not read that as parallelism: repeated runs of this same benchmark land anywhere from0.63to0.86, so the ratio is not stable enough to claim a speedup. The path is serialized around shared encoder and SQLite work by design, and any apparent gain is measurement noise.
3. Write-Time Ingestion Cost
Consolidation off: median
6.5ms, p957.6msConsolidation on: median
58.1ms, p95106.5msTradeoff: write-time dedupe/clustering adds
9.0xmedian cost so recall stays fast and the store stays cleaner over time. Consolidation is off by default.
4. Recall Scaling: Full Scan vs Production Hybrid
Why recall stays flat as memory grows: Instead of scanning every vector, production recall uses an FTS keyword pre-filter to narrow the candidate pool, then re-ranks using a blended semantic + BM25 + temporal score. Both benchmark columns represent authentic asynchronous code paths timed with precomputed vectors to isolate retrieval speed from raw encoding overhead. Tests alternate execution to ensure completely unbiased cache conditions.
Session Size ($N$) | Full Semantic Scan | Production Hybrid | Speedup | FTS candidates |
N = 100 | 3.3 ms | 6.6 ms | 0.5x | 85 / 200 |
N = 500 | 16.3 ms | 11.6 ms | 1.4x | 200 / 200 |
N = 1,000 | 31.1 ms | 14.7 ms | 2.1x | 200 / 200 |
N = 2,000 | 63.5 ms | 19.0 ms | 3.3x | 200 / 200 |
N = 4,000 | 127.2 ms | 29.1 ms | 4.4x | 200 / 200 |
N = 10,000 | 316.7 ms | 53.8 ms | 5.9x | 200 / 200 |
The full scan grows roughly linearly with $N$ while hybrid recall grows far more slowly, so the advantage still widens with session size. At very small $N$ the pre-filter is not worth its overhead and hybrid is slower.
5. LoCoMo Retrieval Accuracy
All 10 LoCoMo conversations are ingested through marm_log_entry (5,882 memories), then top-5 marm_smart_recall results are scored against 1,977 evidence-annotated questions. No answer-generation model or LLM judge is involved, so this measures whether the right memory is retrieved, not whether an agent answers correctly with it.
Configuration | Any evidence hit | All evidence hit | Mean evidence recall |
MiniLM baseline | 37.5% | 29.5% | not published |
Jina v2 Small (v2.29.0) | 53.0% | 43.4% | 47.6% |
v2.33.1 through v2.44.3 | 62.9 - 63.5% | 53.1 - 53.5% | 57.4 - 57.9% |
v2.44.4 (log lane fix) | 69.1 - 69.6% | 58.2 - 58.6% | 63.0 - 63.5% |
The last row is a controlled comparison, same build and data with the log lane as the only variable. That lane previously substring-matched the whole query against log topics and summaries, so a natural-language question never matched and it scored 0.0% on all 1,977 questions. It now tokenizes the query and reaches 53.3% on its own. Ranges rather than single figures because the semantic lane varies about half a point between runs, so a sub-point difference is not a result.
Multi-hop remains the weakest category at 44.9%, and single-hop evidence recall is 36.6% against a 66.2% any-hit rate, so the lane often surfaces some of a question's evidence rather than all of it. Reproduce with run_eval.py.
6. vs Competitors: Architecture
MARM targets a specific niche: local-first memory for MCP-connected coding agents, not general personalization memory or a full agent runtime. Here's how it differs architecturally from established names in AI agent memory:
MARM | Mem0 | Letta (MemGPT) | Zep / Graphiti | agentmemory | |
Type | Memory engine, MCP-native | Memory layer API | Full agent runtime | Temporal knowledge graph | Memory engine, MCP-native |
Required infrastructure | No separate data service (embedded SQLite) | Vector DB (Qdrant/pgvector) | Postgres + vector DB | Neo4j | Separate |
Deployment | Local-first by default; Docker for shared/remote | Cloud API or self-hosted | Self-hosted or cloud | Cloud or self-hosted | Local-first |
Retrieval model | Hybrid: FTS5 BM25 exact lane + semantic rerank | Vector + graph + key-value | Vector archival store + agent-managed core memory | Temporal knowledge graph (fact validity windows) | BM25 + vector + graph (RRF fusion) |
Write capture | Explicit tool calls from the connected agent | Explicit | Agent self-edits its own memory | Explicit API calls | Hook-based, automatic (no explicit calls needed) |
Code structure awareness | Bundled code graph + concept graph, fused with memory | Not built in | Not built in | Not built in | Not built in (pairs with a separate project) |
Framework lock-in | None (any MCP client) | None | High (must run within Letta) | None | None (any MCP client) |
Disclaimers & Accuracy: Competitor landscapes evolve rapidly. The matrix above reflects core architectural traits as of Q3 2026, based on public documentation and READMEs, not internal testing of each system. If any data point regarding an alternative framework has changed or is misrepresented, please open an issue or submit a Pull Request to update the table. We actively welcome corrections from peer maintainers.
MCP Client Setup for HTTP & STDIO
Manual pip install
pip install marm-mcp-serverUse this quick rule of thumb to choose your setup
Local HTTP/STDIO = fastest single-machine setup.
Docker HTTP = shared/always-on server (key required).
Docker STDIO = private containerized local use (no HTTP key).
Swarm / multi-agent note: The write queue is enabled by default to serialize memory writes through one worker. For shared HTTP deployments, use marm-memory start --profile swarm (200 RPM) or --profile swarm-max (600 RPM). --profile trusted disables rate limiting entirely for private deployments. STDIO is still best for private single-agent/local use. See Swarm & multi-agent presets for the full table.
"agent" refers to claude, gemini, grok, qwen, or any MCP client. Codex uses --url instead of --transport to add MCP tools.
pip install marm-mcp-server
marm-memory start
# Stuck on client setup? Open a Q&A thread: https://github.com/Lyellr88/marm-memory/discussions
# most agents use this --transport command
"agent" mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcp
codex mcp add marm-memory --url http://localhost:8001/mcpDefault pip/local startup is zero-config: MARM binds to localhost and does not require a key unless you expose it with SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0.
pip install marm-mcp-server
python -m marm_mcp_server.server_stdio
# most agents use this --transport command
"agent" mcp add --transport stdio marm-memory-stdio marm-mcp-stdio
codex mcp add marm-memory-stdio -- marm-mcp-stdioReplace marm-mcp-stdio with python -m marm_mcp_server.server_stdio if using a virtualenv or a path-based setup. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code, Qwen, and Gemini CLI. STDIO stays a single local process with no port and no API key, and exposes the same 14 tools as HTTP.
Use HTTP when multiple agents need to share one live MARM server. STDIO is still best for private single-agent use because each client owns its own local process.
# HTTP shared server, normal multi-agent use
marm-memory start --profile swarm
# HTTP shared server, heavier private swarm
marm-memory start --profile swarm-max
# HTTP trusted private lab/server, rate limiting disabled
marm-memory start --profile trusted
# STDIO remains keyless/private and does not use swarm flags
marm-mcp-stdioDocker HTTP requires an API key because it exposes MARM as a network server; STDIO stays local to the client process and does not need one.
If you installed MARM through pip, the product CLI can safely preview or run the same setup. It uses a loopback port by default, preserves ~/.marm, stores the generated key in ~/.marm/.env rather than shell history, and refuses to replace an existing container.
marm-memory docker command # preview the exact HTTP command
marm-memory docker run # create the managed HTTP container
marm-memory docker stdio-command # print a Docker STDIO client command
marm-memory docker status
marm-memory docker logs --follow
marm-memory docker stop
# Optional: mount repositories read-only for code indexing.
marm-memory docker run --repo /absolute/path/to/repository
# Optional: preview or explicitly write a Compose configuration.
marm-memory docker compose
marm-memory docker compose --yesThe HTTP run, command, and compose commands accept the same operational flags:
Flag | Purpose |
| Persistent host directory mounted at |
| Explicit Docker env file. It must already contain |
| Host HTTP port. Default: |
| Bind the host port to |
| Select the same write-queue and rate-limit preset as native HTTP startup. |
| Override the selected profile's HTTP rate limit. |
| Repeatable read-only repository mount for code indexing. MARM reports each corresponding |
| Official image tag. Default: |
| Pull the selected image before creating a new HTTP container. |
| Managed container name. MARM refuses to replace an existing container with that name. |
| Optional Docker resource limits. |
|
|
For example:
# Shared local server with a custom data path and two repositories for indexing.
marm-memory docker command \
--profile swarm \
--data-dir /srv/marm-data \
--repo /srv/projects/api \
--repo /srv/projects/web
# Execute the reviewed command, pulling the image first.
marm-memory docker run --profile swarm --data-dir /srv/marm-data --pullDocker STDIO is separate from Docker HTTP: marm-memory docker stdio-command uses docker run -i --rm, has no port and no bearer key, but still mounts the data directory so SQLite memory persists after the short-lived container exits. Use --data-dir and --tag with that command when needed. There are no separate docker key or docker mount commands; --env-file and --data-dir make those choices explicit in the generated HTTP command.
marm-memory docker pull only downloads an image. marm-memory docker maintenance embeddings migrate runs against the same data mount and refuses while the managed HTTP container is running. The helper is available only with the pip-installed marm-memory command; Docker-only users can use the raw commands below.
# Step 1: generate key (do not add < > around the key)
docker run --rm lyellr88/marm-mcp-server:latest --generate-key
# Step 2: run server
docker pull lyellr88/marm-mcp-server:latest
docker run -d --name marm-mcp-server \
-p 127.0.0.1:8001:8001 \
-e SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 \
-e MARM_API_KEY=your-generated-key \
-v ~/.marm:/home/marm/.marm \
lyellr88/marm-mcp-server:latest
# Step 3: connect client
"agent" mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer your-generated-key"
# PowerShell: set this before starting/restarting Codex
$env:MARM_API_KEY="your-generated-key"
codex mcp add marm-memory --url http://localhost:8001/mcp --bearer-token-env-var MARM_API_KEY
# Quick auth smoke test
curl -i -H "Authorization: Bearer $env:MARM_API_KEY" http://127.0.0.1:8001/mcp--bearer-token-env-var takes the environment variable name, not the raw key. Start or restart Codex from the same shell after setting $env:MARM_API_KEY. For local Docker smoke tests, MARM_API_KEY=test is fine and avoids shell escaping problems; use a generated key for real deployments. A 406 Not Acceptable from the smoke-test GET /mcp means auth reached the MCP endpoint; 401 Unauthorized means the key is missing or mismatched.
# --swarm: write queue on, 200 RPM - recommended for multi-agent shared servers
docker run -d --name marm-mcp-server \
-p 127.0.0.1:8001:8001 \
-e SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 \
-e MARM_API_KEY=your-generated-key \
-v ~/.marm:/home/marm/.marm \
lyellr88/marm-mcp-server:latest --swarmDocker graph tools run inside the container, so they cannot see host paths unless you mount them at docker run.
$env:MARM_API_KEY="test"
# The second -v line mounts your repo; adjust the host path to your project
docker run -d --name marm-mcp-server `
-p 127.0.0.1:8001:8001 `
-e SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 `
-e MARM_API_KEY=$env:MARM_API_KEY `
-v ~/.marm:/home/marm/.marm `
-v C:\Users\lyell\Desktop\marm-memory:/workspace/marm-memory `
lyellr88/marm-mcp-server:latestThen index the container path, not the Windows host path:
marm_graph_index(repo_path="/workspace/marm-memory")Graph tools must use the container path. Mounts cannot be added to an already-running container; stop and restart the container with the repo mount when you want Docker graph indexing.
Docker STDIO includes the same built-in marm-graph tools; no extra image or install step is required.
docker run --rm -i \
-v ~/.marm:/home/marm/.marm \
--entrypoint python \
lyellr88/marm-mcp-server:latest \
-m marm_mcp_server.server_stdioDocker HTTP requires a key; Docker STDIO does not.
If you get
401, verify key match and client restart after env var changes.For full key setup, rotation, and troubleshooting: INSTALL-DOCKER.md
Connect your client
Start the server (python -m marm_mcp_server), then wire up your client below. Every block assumes the default local install (no key). For Docker or exposed servers, add the Authorization: Bearer header shown in each client's collapsible.
claude mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcpClaude Code supports HTTP, SSE, and STDIO through claude mcp add; use HTTP for MARM. For STDIO: claude mcp add --transport stdio marm-memory-stdio marm-mcp-stdio.
Add to .vscode/mcp.json in your workspace. Use marm-memory-local for direct Python installs; marm-memory-docker for Docker or exposed/key mode.
{
"inputs": [
{
"type": "promptString",
"id": "marm-api-key",
"description": "MARM API Key for Docker or exposed server mode",
"password": true
}
],
"servers": {
"marm-memory-local": {
"type": "http",
"url": "http://localhost:8001/mcp"
},
"marm-memory-docker": {
"type": "http",
"url": "http://localhost:8001/mcp",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer ${input:marm-api-key}"
}
}
}
}Open .vscode/mcp.json, click Start above the server you want, then use Copilot Agent or any extension that consumes VS Code's native MCP registry.
Add to .cursor/mcp.json in your workspace. Cursor uses mcpServers, not VS Code's servers root.
{
"mcpServers": {
"marm-memory-local": {
"type": "http",
"url": "http://localhost:8001/mcp"
},
"marm-memory-docker": {
"type": "http",
"url": "http://localhost:8001/mcp",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer ${env:MARM_API_KEY}"
}
}
}
}For Docker/key mode, launch Cursor with MARM_API_KEY set in the environment.
Codex uses codex mcp add or TOML config at ~/.codex/config.toml (%USERPROFILE%\.codex\config.toml on Windows).
# Direct Python install - no key needed
codex mcp add marm-memory --url http://localhost:8001/mcp
# Docker or SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 - key required (set MARM_API_KEY in your shell first)
codex mcp add marm-memory --url http://localhost:8001/mcp --bearer-token-env-var MARM_API_KEY[mcp_servers."marm-memory"]
url = "http://localhost:8001/mcp"
enabled = true
bearer_token_env_var = "MARM_API_KEY"# Direct Python install - no key needed
gemini mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcp
# Docker or SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 - key required
gemini mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer your-generated-key"Equivalent ~/.gemini/settings.json (user scope) or project .gemini/settings.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"marm-memory": {
"httpUrl": "http://localhost:8001/mcp",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer your-generated-key"
}
}
}
}# Direct Python install - no key needed
qwen mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcp
# Docker or SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0 - key required
qwen mcp add --transport http marm-memory http://localhost:8001/mcp --header "Authorization: Bearer your-generated-key"Equivalent .qwen/settings.json (project) or ~/.qwen/settings.json (user):
{
"mcpServers": {
"marm-memory": {
"httpUrl": "http://localhost:8001/mcp",
"headers": {
"Authorization": "Bearer your-generated-key"
}
}
}
}xAI connects from its own infrastructure, so localhost will not work. Expose MARM behind HTTPS and set MARM_API_KEY.
{
"type": "mcp",
"server_url": "https://your-marm-domain.example.com/mcp",
"server_label": "marm-memory",
"authorization": "Bearer your-generated-key"
}Full platform walkthroughs, key setup, and OS-specific notes: Windows · macOS · Linux · Docker/key mode · Other platforms
Using a client that isn't listed? Open an issue and let us know; client adapters are a first-class feature request.
Requirements
Python: 3.10 or higher
SQLite3: Included with Python (no separate install needed)
Storage: ~100MB minimum for initial setup, scales with memory database size
RAM: 512MB minimum (varies by concurrent clients and database size)
OS: Windows, macOS, Linux
Data location
Location:
~/.marm/(Linux/macOS) or%USERPROFILE%\.marm\(Windows)Contents: SQLite database with all memories, sessions, and notebooks; the concept graph lives in its own
~/.marm/index/databaseBackup: Copy the entire
~/.marm/directory to preserve all dataPrivacy: Everything stays on your machine, no cloud sync or external storage
Verify installation
Use the MCP server health endpoint for the fastest live check:
curl http://localhost:8001/healthExpected output includes server version, feature availability (semantic search status), database connection status, and service health status.
Complete MCP Tool Suite (14 Tools)
💡 Pro Tip: You don't need to manually call these tools! Just tell your AI agent what you want in natural language:
"Claude, log this session as 'Project Alpha' and add this conversation as 'database design discussion'"
"Remember this code snippet in your notebook for later"
"Search for what we discussed about authentication yesterday"
The AI agent will automatically use the appropriate tools. Manual tool access is available for power users who want direct control.
🧠 Core Memory (7 tools)
Tool | What it does | Key parameters |
| Hybrid memory recall with an additive, bounded concept/code graph sidecar when a compatible graph exists |
|
| Add structured session log entries; each entry is also embedded into semantic memory so |
|
| Display all entries and sessions, with filtering |
|
| Delete a log session, log entry, or notebook entry |
|
| Cached, paste-ready session summaries with intelligent truncation |
|
| Session-scoped scratch pad plus promotion to a permanent, graph-linked doc |
|
| Agent-assisted memory cleanup with a reviewable audit trail |
|
🕸️ Code Graph (5 tools)
Tool | What it does | Key parameters |
| Index a repo into the code-structure graph, check status, list projects, or turn automatic re-indexing on and off |
|
| Find symbols, text patterns, or a symbol's source; use instead of grep/glob |
|
| Trace call paths and data flow from a function |
|
| Architecture overview: modules, node/edge breakdown, schema |
|
| Blast radius of code changes: git diff → affected symbols + risk |
|
🧩 Concept Graph (2 tools)
Tool | What it does | Key parameters |
| Rebuild the graph, or index memories stored before automatic indexing. New memories are indexed on their own |
|
| Explicitly query entities, relationships, and linked code symbols |
|
All 14 tools are available on both HTTP and STDIO. Behind the tool surface, the server handles lifecycle setup, protocol refresh, docs indexing, date context, summary-cache maintenance, write queue handling, concept indexing, code re-indexing as repos change, project/platform attribution, and health checks automatically; none of those consume the agent's attention or tokens. The two graph engines start lazily on first use and never block the 7 core memory tools if they fail to start. See Architecture & Internals for the mechanisms.
Using MARM: Talk, Don't Call Tools
MARM handles lifecycle work internally. Docs and session state initialize on the first real tool call, and packaged docs are indexed into the marm_system memory namespace with source-file hash tracking, so your agent can answer MARM usage questions from memory itself.
Example Workflow: Cross-AI Research Project
A realistic workflow showing MARM in action. Scenario: you're researching authentication patterns for a new project using multiple AI clients.
Phase 1: Route Session (Claude)
You: "Claude, create a MARM session called 'auth-research-2025-01'"
Claude calls: marm_log_entry(entry="Session: auth-research")
Result: Session routed to auth-research-[today]. MARM lifecycle/docs initialize automatically.Phase 2: Capture Research (Claude)
You: "Summarize OAuth2 vs JWT for API authentication and save it"
Claude calls: marm_log_entry(entry="Research: OAuth2 is token-based with refresh cycles, better for delegated access. JWT is stateless, good for microservices...", session_name="auth-research-2025-01")
Result: Research captured in the active session log and marked for summary-cache refreshPhase 3: Add Reusable Reference (Claude)
You: "Save a JWT validation code snippet to my notebooks as 'jwt-validation-pattern'"
Claude calls: marm_notebook(action="add", name="jwt-validation-pattern", data="def verify_jwt(token):\n # validation logic...")
Result: Reusable snippet stored for future projectsPhase 4: Recall Context (Gemini)
You: "Gemini, what authentication approaches did we research? Activate the JWT pattern."
Gemini calls: marm_smart_recall("authentication patterns", search_all=True)
Gemini calls: marm_notebook(action="use", names="jwt-validation-pattern")
Result: Gemini sees previous research + has JWT code available as contextPhase 5: Synthesis & Summary (Qwen)
You: "Qwen, pull everything from the auth research and create a summary"
Qwen calls: marm_smart_recall("authentication", session_name="auth-research-2025-01", limit=20)
Qwen calls: marm_summary(session_name="auth-research-2025-01")
Result: Qwen generates an implementation guide from all captured researchPhase 6: End Session (Claude)
You: "Log final decision - we're using JWT for APIs, and OAuth2 for user auth"
Claude calls: marm_log_entry(entry="DECISION: JWT for API auth, OAuth2 for user flows. Rationale: stateless APIs + delegated user access", session_name="auth-research-2025-01")
Result: Decision logged and searchable by all future AI clientsResult: Three different AI clients collaboratively researched a topic, shared insights, and documented decisions. All without re-explaining the project to each new AI.
Advanced patterns
Project Structure:
├── project-name-planning/ # Initial design and requirements
├── project-name-development/ # Implementation details
├── project-name-testing/ # QA and debugging notes
├── project-name-deployment/ # Production deployment
└── project-name-retrospective/ # Lessons learnedKnowledge base loop:
Capture: Use
marm_log_entryfor structured session learningsOrganize: Create themed sessions for knowledge areas
Synthesize: Regular
marm_summaryfor knowledge consolidationApply: Convert summaries to
marm_notebook(action="add", ...)entries
Multi-AI collaboration: each AI works in dedicated sessions on its strengths, uses marm_smart_recall to build on the others' work, then a collaborative session combines the insights.
Session naming: Include the LLM name for cross-referencing
Strategic logging: Focus on key decisions, solutions, discoveries, configurations
Global search: Use
search_all=Trueto search across all sessionsNatural language search: "authentication problems with JWT tokens" beats "auth error"
Layered recall depth:
detail=1returns a short summary view (~200 chars),detail=2a larger context view (~500 chars),detail=3full memory contentNotebook stacking: Combine multiple entries for complex workflows
Compaction: Let MARM surface compaction candidates, then use
marm_compactionto stage, review, apply, or discard summariesSession lifecycle: Start → Work → Reference → Review staged compaction when MARM asks
Understanding MARM Memory
Two searches, two very different problems, one tool:
User: "I discussed machine learning algorithms yesterday"
MARM Search: Finds related memories about "ML models", "neural networks", "AI training"
User: "What was the COMPACTION_TRIGGER_COUNT setting?"
MARM Search: Finds the exact config memory even if the rest of the text differsThe first query is about meaning, so MARM reranks candidates with local vector embeddings — RAG-style semantic search without a hosted vector database. The second is syntax-shaped (a config key), so MARM detects that automatically and routes it through deterministic exact matching instead. This exact-retrieval lane is the difference between a memory system that works in demos and one that answers the questions developers actually ask: config keys, CLI flags, file paths, API names, error strings. Pure-semantic memory systems fail at exactly those queries.
MARM uses filter→rerank hybrid recall plus an exact retrieval lane:
Exact lane (
exact_mode="auto", the default): config keys, CLI flags, file paths, API/tool names, dotted namespaces, HTTP routes, URLs, and quoted command strings are detected and routed through deterministic FTS5 BM25 with a LIKE fallback. No embeddings involved, so results are stable and literal.Filter→rerank lane: natural-language queries first pull a bounded candidate set from the FTS index (
FTS_CANDIDATE_LIMIT, default 200), then semantic embeddings rerank those candidates by meaning. Conservative temporal weighting gives fresher memories a modest boost when matches are otherwise close.Bounded semantic fallback: when FTS coverage is weak or unusable, MARM falls back to a bounded semantic scan (
RECALL_SCAN_LIMIT). If the response includesrecall_scan_truncated=true, the fallback hit its cap; narrow the session/query or raise the env var for larger stores.Chunk-aware scoring: long memories (roughly 180+ words) are embedded as overlapping chunk rows internally, and recall collapses chunk scores back to one parent memory using the best-matching chunk. Both the rerank lane and the fallback lane are chunk-aware.
This is why recall latency stays nearly flat as the store grows (see benchmarks): the semantic rerank always scores a bounded set instead of scanning every embedding.
Exact recall control: exact_mode="auto" is usually right. Use exact_mode="exact" when a query must match literal text such as RECALL_SCAN_LIMIT, --generate-key, or settings.py. Use exact_mode="semantic" when a syntax-looking query should still be treated as meaning-based recall.
Memory types & classification
Context Logs - Auto-classified conversation memories
Manual Entries - Explicitly saved important information
Notebook Entries - Reusable instructions and knowledge
Session Summaries - Compressed conversation history
MARM automatically categorizes content on write: Code (programming snippets and technical discussions), Project (work conversations and planning), Book (literature, learning materials, research), and General (everything else).
Project & platform attribution
MARM stores nullable project and platform columns on memories, log entries, and notebook entries. The project is detected from the working directory and the platform from the connecting client (Claude Code, VS Code, Cursor, ...); MARM_PROJECT and MARM_PLATFORM override detection. marm_smart_recall(project=..., platform=...) scopes recall without changing the default unfiltered behavior, so one shared server can hold several projects without cross-contamination.
Knowledge Graphs: Code & Concepts
MARM ships two graph systems that complement the memory store: a code graph that understands your repository's structure, and a concept graph that understands what your stored memories are about. When both are indexed for the same project, concept entities cross-link to code symbols.
Code Graph: repo indexing and code lookup
marm-graph is bundled into both transports. It indexes a repository once, then lets agents ask code-structure questions without repeatedly scanning files:
Use marm_graph_index to index this repository.
Then use marm_code_lookup when you need symbols, files, or source snippets.
Use marm_graph_trace for call paths, marm_graph_architecture for an overview, and marm_graph_impact for change-risk checks.The recommended agent workflow: index once, then marm_code_lookup before broad file reads, marm_graph_trace when callers/callees or data-flow context matters, marm_graph_architecture for orientation, and marm_graph_impact before risky refactors. One graph query replaces dozens of grep/read cycles, which is where the token savings come from.
Once a repository is indexed, MARM keeps it current on its own. A filesystem watcher notices a save, a commit, a branch switch, or a merge and re-indexes shortly after, debounced so a burst of changes becomes one pass rather than one per file. A periodic reconciliation pass catches anything a watcher event missed and is the only trigger for a directory that is not a git repo. To index only on request instead:
marm-mcp-server projects auto offAn agent can do the same with marm_graph_index(action="auto_off"), and action="auto_status" reports what is being watched and when each project was last indexed. The switch persists across restarts and beats the GRAPH_AUTO_INDEX environment variable.
Under the hood, the engine is codebase-memory-mcp (MIT), a zero-dependency static binary that parses 158 languages through tree-sitter with Hybrid LSP type resolution for the major ones, indexes an average repository in seconds, and answers symbol search and call tracing in well under a second. Measured on a 149,107-node graph over the persistent connection MARM holds: symbol search 146ms, call tracing 67ms, and the full architecture overview 1.23s, which is the one query that is not sub-second. MARM pins a specific release, verifies its tool schema on startup, and routes the upstream tool set through 5 focused MCP tools so the model surface stays small. The graph backend starts lazily on first graph-tool use, so memory, logging, notebook, and summary tools still start fast. In Docker, the engine binary is baked into the image; local pip installs fetch it on first graph use (~269MB, one time).
Degraded mode: if the graph engine fails to start (no network for the first-run download, disk full, schema drift) or GRAPH_ENABLED=false is set, graph tools return {"status": "error", "message": "graph backend unavailable"} while the other 9 tools keep working normally. Graph failures can never take down memory.
Concept Graph: what your memories are about
MARM extracts a knowledge graph from the memories you store, producing typed entities (concepts, decisions, patterns, errors, tools, people, organizations) connected by typed relationships (fixes, implements, depends_on, uses, causes, replaces, extends). This happens on its own: storing a memory queues it, and a background worker adds it to the graph roughly 30 seconds later. marm_concept_build is still there for a full or scoped rebuild. Once there is a graph, marm_smart_recall adds bounded related entities, relationships, and linked code as a graph_context sidecar without changing primary memory ranking. marm_concept_recall remains available for explicit graph exploration:
marm_concept_recall(query="write queue") → the entity, its relationships, linked code symbols
marm_concept_recall(query="related to SQLite", depth=3) → multi-hop traversal of everything connectedHow to use it:
Automatic by default: new memories reach the graph without a tool call. Set
CONCEPT_AUTO_INDEX=falseto go back to manual builds only, which stops the worker but keeps recording queue rows, so turning it back on picks up everything written while it was off;CONCEPT_INDEX_DEBOUNCE_SECONDS(30) andCONCEPT_INDEX_BATCH_SIZE(20) control the pace.Safe on both transports at once: a leased lock in the memory database keeps a rebuild in one process from dropping graph tables while another process is writing to them. A build that finds the graph busy says so instead of colliding.
Failure never reaches your memories: indexing runs on a durable queue outside the write path. Extraction problems retry, a memory that fails repeatedly is parked with its error, and the memory itself stores and recalls normally throughout.
Clearing a backlog costs some recall speed: entity extraction is CPU-bound, so while the worker is working through a queue, measured recall goes from ~8ms to ~16ms median on a real 768-memory corpus. Writes are unaffected. It only applies while a backlog is draining, which for most people is once, after the upgrade rebuild. Reproduce it with
scripts/benchmarking/performance/bench_concept_worker.py --from-live.Build for the backlog:
marm_concept_buildscoped to asession_name,project, orsearch_all=Trueindexes memories stored before automatic indexing existed, and rebuilds after an upgrade that requires one.Upgrade twice so far: graphs built before platform attribution, or before compaction sources replaced summaries as the indexed rows, require
marm_concept_build(search_all=True). A full build backs up and resets only the derived concept database; targeted builds refuse to guess platform ownership.Whole scope, paged: builds read every memory in scope.
CONCEPT_BUILD_ROW_CAP(default 500) is the page size, so lowering it makes a build read more, smaller pages rather than skipping the rest.Compacted sessions: the original memories are indexed and the generated summary is not, so concepts stay attributed to where they were actually stated.
Recall fails open: a missing, empty, incompatible, or unavailable concept graph never blocks normal memory recall. The response reports graph status separately.
Code cross-linking: when the code graph has indexed the same project, concept entities that match code symbols get linked, connecting "what we decided" to "where it lives in the code."
Bundled extraction runtime: the spaCy runtime and English extraction model ship with MARM but load only on the first extraction, which now happens on its own shortly after the first memory is stored rather than when you run a build. If a damaged or partial installation makes them unavailable, both concept tools degrade cleanly while core memory remains available; run
marm-memory knowledge status, then reinstall MARM if needed.Isolated storage: the concept graph lives in its own SQLite database (
~/.marm/index/marm_index.db) with its own connection pool, so concept-graph writes can never block or corrupt the production memory database.Console atlas: the Knowledge Graph opens in a compact, deterministic connected sample for fast navigation. Choose Render all N nodes when you need the complete atlas. Full-atlas mode keeps background relationship lines hidden until you hover or select a node, so its direct connections remain readable without drawing the whole spiderweb at once.
This fills the cross-session structure gap that flat memory search leaves open: sessions organize memories, but the concept graph connects them, so "what depends on the write queue?" is answerable even when the answer spans five sessions from three different agents.
Architecture & Internals
Everything above runs on a small number of deliberate mechanisms. This section is the full map, so you (or your agent) never have to guess what the server is doing.
Storage engine
SQLite in WAL mode at
~/.marm/marm_memory.dbwith a connection pool (5 connections). WAL keeps readers unblocked during writes, which matters when several agents recall while one writes.FTS5 full-text index (
memories_fts) is maintained as an external-content table over the memories table and powers both the exact lane (BM25) and the filter stage of hybrid recall.Chunk storage: memories past ~180 words are split into overlapping 150-token chunks (50-token overlap) in a
memory_chunkstable, each with its own embedding. Recall scores chunks and collapses to the parent memory.Embeddings come from the fastembed-backed
jinaai/jina-embeddings-v2-small-enencoder: 33M parameters, 512 dimensions, an 8,192-token context window, and an Apache-2.0 license. It does not require separate query/document text prefixes. The encoder is lazily loaded on first semantic use and serialized behind a lock so concurrent encodes can't corrupt each other. If it is unavailable, writes still succeed; memories are stored without embeddings until it loads. Semantic scoring runs as a single NumPy batch (matrix cosine) rather than a Python loop.The concept graph gets its own database (
~/.marm/index/marm_index.db) and its own pool, reusing the same pool implementation but never sharing connections with the memory store. Deliberate isolation: an experimental graph build must not be able to stall the production WAL. The one exception is the indexing queue, which lives in the memory database on purpose so a memory and its indexing task commit together; the graph itself stays derived and disposable.
Write path
Serialized write queue (enabled by default): all memory writes flow through one internal async worker, eliminating SQLite writer contention under multi-agent load. The queue is generic; compaction applies go through the same worker, so there is exactly one writer no matter which subsystem is writing.
MAX_QUEUE_SIZEbounds it.Write-time consolidation (opt-in,
CONSOLIDATION_ENABLED=1) runs two layers before a memory lands:Layer 1, exact dedup: a SHA-256 hash of normalized content is checked within the session; hash hits are verified against the actual content before deduplicating, so a hash collision stores a new row instead of silently merging different content.
Layer 2, semantic merge: near-duplicates above
CONSOLIDATION_THRESHOLDcosine similarity are merged rather than accumulated. This never blocks a write; if the encoder isn't available, the write proceeds unconsolidated.The tradeoff is measured and published: roughly 9x median write cost (58ms vs 6.5ms) in exchange for a store that stays clean, because reads dominate memory workloads. See section 3 of the benchmarks above.
Concept indexing is a durable outbox: a write records an indexing task in the same transaction as the memory, so a memory cannot exist without one. A background worker drains that queue and writes the concept graph. Nothing on the write path waits for extraction, and a process killed mid-extraction loses no work because the task is a row rather than an in-memory job. Both transports run a worker, so the two coordinate through a leased lock in the memory database rather than an in-process lock, which would not span them.
Compaction (opt-in,
COMPACTION_ENABLED=1) is Layer 3: after enough writes in a session, a background pass detects clusters of related memories using cosine similarity plus union-find connected components, gated by minimum cluster size, minimum age, and an active-session grace period so it never compacts work in flight. MARM then injects a bounded request asking the connected agent to summarize each cluster:candidates→stage→review→applyordiscard. Source memory IDs are preserved on apply, so compacted summaries stay traceable to their originals. Staged summaries expire (COMPACTION_STAGING_TTL_HOURS), nudges are capped and cooldown-limited, and the injection has a byte budget. The design is honest about what LLMs are for: MARM detects, the agent summarizes, and a human-reviewable stage/apply/discard loop gates the destructive step.
Recall path
Covered in Understanding MARM Memory: exact lane (FTS5 BM25 + LIKE fallback), filter→rerank (bounded FTS candidates → batch semantic rerank → temporal blend), bounded semantic fallback with an explicit truncation flag, and chunk-collapse scoring. Recall depth (detail=1/2/3) controls how much of each memory is returned, and every MCP response passes through a 1MB response limiter that truncates content intelligently instead of breaking the protocol.
Code graph subprocess protocol
The bundled graph engine runs as a supervised child process, not an import:
Transport: newline-delimited JSON-RPC 2.0 over the child's stdio, with a verified handshake (initialize → capture server version → initialized notification).
Envelope care: responses are scanned for the first JSON-parseable content item rather than assuming index 0, because the upstream binary can prepend an update notice. Tool errors arrive as
result.isError, not JSON-RPC errors, and are converted to clean{"status": "error"}dicts with the upstream's own remediation hint attached.Serialization: one lock guards each write+read round trip on the single stdin pipe; async callers go through
asyncio.to_threadso the event loop never blocks on subprocess IO.Crash recovery: stderr is drained on a background thread, child EOF/crash is detected, and the process is transparently respawned on the next call. Timeouts are deliberately not treated as crashes; a long index run may still be working, and killing it would destroy in-flight work.
Supervision: a lazy singleton supervisor owns the client for the process lifetime. Startup is triggered by the first graph-tool call or by the auto-index worker if the engine binary is already downloaded, never raises into the MCP layer, and verifies the pinned binary's tool schema so upstream drift is caught at startup instead of mid-call.
Auto re-indexing is filesystem watched, with a git content signature and a reconciliation fallback: a bundled watcher wakes the worker on a save, commit, branch switch, or merge; matching events are debounced so a burst becomes one re-index. For a git repository, the trigger is confirmed by hashing the diff against
HEADplus a fingerprint of non-ignored untracked files, computed outside the engine so an idle check costs no engine lock and two different edits to the same already-modified file are told apart instead of read as identical. A periodic reconciliation pass catches a missed watcher event, covers a filesystem that cannot be watched, and is the only trigger for a directory that is not a git repo. Git runs withcore.fsmonitordisabled and a scrubbed environment, since that setting names a program git would otherwise execute from a watched repository.One gate for every store mutation: manual indexes on all three surfaces, the auto-index worker, and project deletion all pass through a single leased row in the memory database. HTTP and STDIO are separate processes with separate engine children over one shared engine store, so an in-process lock cannot span them. The lease is released when the engine call actually returns rather than when its caller stops waiting: a cancelled request cannot hand the store to another process while the engine is still writing to it.
Security & rate limiting
Two-mode auth gate: keyless on loopback (
127.0.0.1),MARM_API_KEY(Bearer) mandatory the moment the server is network-exposed (SERVER_HOST=0.0.0.0, Docker).--generate-keyproduces one. Safe by default, zero setup friction locally.IP-based rate limiting with sliding windows and temporary blocks, tuned through CLI presets rather than a config maze (table below).
Local-first: everything lives under
~/.marm/; no cloud sync, no telemetry, no external storage.Graceful shutdown: SIGTERM/SIGINT handlers drain and close the connection pool cleanly, and an internal event system runs automation callbacks with per-callback error isolation and timeouts so one bad hook can't wedge the server.
Swarm & multi-agent presets
Flag | Rate Limit | Write Queue | Use When |
(none) | 80 RPM | enabled | Normal local use and small 3-5 agent setups |
| 200 RPM | enabled | Shared HTTP server, roughly 15-30 agents depending on write style |
| 600 RPM | enabled | Heavier local/private swarm, roughly 50-100 agents depending on write style |
| disabled | enabled | Private/trusted deployments only |
| N RPM | unchanged | Custom override; 0 disables limiting |
The write queue serializes memory writes regardless of preset; swarm flags tune the HTTP rate limit on top of that. The queue controls write ordering; consolidation and compaction are separate memory-maintenance layers. This stack (WAL + pooling + one serialized writer + RPM presets) is intentionally scoped to "SQLite, many agents, one machine"; distributed multi-node memory is out of scope for the current design.
Self-maintaining documentation
Packaged docs are indexed into the marm_system memory namespace on startup and refreshed every 50 tool calls, with source-file hash tracking so unchanged docs are skipped and changed or deleted rows are re-indexed. Connected agents can answer MARM usage questions with marm_smart_recall instead of you pasting docs at them.
Configuration reference
Variable | Default | What it controls |
|
| Bind address; |
|
| HTTP port |
| (empty) | Bearer key for network-exposed deployments |
|
| Memory database location |
|
| Concept graph database location |
| (auto-detected) | Override project/platform attribution |
|
| Requests per minute per IP (presets override) |
|
| Serialize writes through one worker |
|
| BM25 candidates fetched before semantic reranking; raise for stores with weak keyword overlap, lower to tighten results to the closest keyword matches |
|
| Cap on the semantic fallback scan; |
|
| How semantic recall builds its keyword query: |
| (empty) | Comma-separated extra words to ignore when building keyword queries, for terms so common in your store they carry no signal |
|
| How much the keyword score influences ranking. Set from a benchmark sweep; accuracy peaks across |
|
| Keyword score used when only one memory matches, or when every match ties. Lower it on small stores if a single keyword match should not count as a perfect one. |
|
| Set to |
|
| Strength and decay of the recency boost |
|
| Write-time dedup + semantic merge |
|
| Cosine similarity needed to merge near-duplicates. Compared against meaning-similarity alone, not the blended ranking score |
|
| Background cluster detection + agent-assisted compaction |
|
| Writes per session before a compaction pass |
|
| Cluster detection gates |
|
| How long staged summaries wait before expiring |
|
| Kill switch for the 5 code-graph tools |
|
| Automatic re-indexing of repos already in the code graph. A saved switch from |
|
| Quiet period after a watcher event before a repo is evaluated, so a burst of saves becomes one re-index. Minimum 0.5 |
|
| Fallback pass that catches a missed watcher event, covers a filesystem that cannot be watched, and is the only trigger for a directory that is not a git repo. Minimum 60. Replaces the deprecated |
|
| Index depth for automatic re-indexes: |
|
| How long the indexing gate stays owned once nothing is renewing it. A running index renews its own lease, so this bounds how long a killed process blocks indexing, not how long an index may take |
|
| How long the list of watched projects is trusted before it is re-read from the engine |
|
| Memory rows read per page during a concept-graph build. Not a cap on the build: every memory in scope is read either way |
|
| Automatic concept indexing of new memories. |
|
| Quiet period after a write before indexing starts, so a burst becomes one pass |
|
| Memories indexed per batch, capped at 500. Lowering it does not reduce contention; it measured slightly worse |
|
| Pause between batches while clearing a backlog. Cuts worst-case recall during indexing from ~270ms to ~80ms for about 18% longer drain. |
|
| How long a claimed indexing task stays owned once nothing is renewing it. Work in progress renews its own lease, so this bounds how long a killed process holds tasks, not how long a batch may take. Reclaimed tasks spend no attempt |
|
| Failed attempts before a memory is parked with its error instead of retried |
Troubleshooting
The Jina v2 Small default uses 512-dimensional embeddings; older all-MiniLM-L6-v2 data is 384-dimensional and must be re-embedded. Stop every MARM HTTP and STDIO process, then run:
marm-memory maintenance embeddings migrateIt re-embeds memory, chunk, and any existing concept-graph vectors (notebook scratch entries no longer carry embeddings), reports progress, verifies both databases, and is resumable after an interruption. It refuses to start against a live HTTP server; STDIO processes cannot be detected reliably and must be stopped manually.
Repair Chunked Memories
Memories over 500 words are also stored as smaller chunks. Chunk sizing changed across versions, and the migration above re-embeds chunks without re-splitting them, so older chunks keep stale boundaries. Stop every MARM process, then run:
marm-memory maintenance chunks rechunkIt re-splits stale chunks, fills in any lost to an interrupted write, and drops chunks from memories now under the threshold. Memories already correct are skipped without loading the encoder, so rerunning costs nothing. Same live-server guard as above, plus it refuses when stored vectors do not match the configured embedding model: migrate first in that case. Recall works without this, just less accurately on long memories.
Server won't start
Check Python version:
python --version(must be 3.10+)Verify port 8001 isn't in use:
lsof -i :8001(macOS/Linux) ornetstat -ano | findstr :8001(Windows)Check for permission errors in home directory (
~/.marm/must be readable/writable)See platform-specific troubleshooting: INSTALL-DOCKER.md, INSTALL-WINDOWS.md, INSTALL-MACOS.md, INSTALL-LINUX.md
STDIO connection fails
Verify
marm-mcp-stdiois on your PATH after pip install:marm-mcp-stdio --helpAlternatively, use:
python -m marm_mcp_server.server_stdioCheck AI client documentation for STDIO transport requirements
Try direct execution to see error messages:
python -m marm_mcp_server.server_stdio
AI client can't connect to MARM
Verify the server is running with
curl http://localhost:8001/healthCheck the firewall isn't blocking port 8001
For STDIO: use
marm-mcp-stdio(console script) orpython -m marm_mcp_server.server_stdioRestart both server and AI client
Tools not appearing in AI client
Verify HTTP mode with
curl http://localhost:8001/healthCheck server logs for initialization errors
Disconnect and reconnect AI client to refresh tool list
Both HTTP and STDIO expose 14 tools: 7 core memory/logging/notebook/compaction tools, 5 bundled code-graph tools, and 2 concept-graph tools
Graph tools return graph backend unavailable
Confirm
GRAPH_ENABLEDis not set tofalse(affects both HTTP and STDIO; graph tools have full parity across both transports)First graph use may take longer while the pinned codebase-memory engine starts or downloads locally
In Docker, the graph engine binary is baked into the image; local pip installs may fetch it on first graph use
Core memory tools continue working even when graph startup fails
Concept tools return entities_extracted: 0
First confirm that a scoped concept build actually includes memories with extractable entities.
Run
marm-memory knowledge status; if it reports a missing runtime or model, repair the install withpython -m pip install -U --force-reinstall marm-mcp-server.
New memories are not showing up in the graph
Run
marm-memory knowledge status.index_queue.pendingis how many memories are waiting;index_queue.parkedis how many gave up.auto_index: falsemeans indexing is switched off.Give it the debounce interval (30 seconds by default) plus extraction time. A burst of writes is indexed as one pass, not one per memory.
Check that
CONCEPT_AUTO_INDEXis not set tofalse,0,no, oroff.A graph awaiting a rebuild is not indexed into. If the Console or
marm-memory knowledge statusreportsrebuild_required, runmarm_concept_build(search_all=True)once; queued memories are picked up after it.Automatic indexing only covers memories written since the upgrade. Run a build once to bring in everything older.
A memory that fails extraction three times is parked rather than retried forever. The reason is recorded with the task.
Code changes are not showing up in the code graph
Run
marm-memory projects auto status.enabled: falsemeans automatic re-indexing is switched off;source: overridemeans a saved switch is what turned it off, not the environment.The repo has to be indexed once before it is watched.
marm-memory projects listshows what is enrolled.Give it the debounce window (2 seconds by default) plus index time. If nothing happens after that, the reconciliation pass (5 minutes by default) is the backstop.
A project deleted from the Console stays suppressed on purpose, so a stale watch list cannot recreate it. Indexing it explicitly re-enrolls it.
Automatic indexing needs the graph engine, which stays dormant until the engine binary has been downloaded. Any graph tool call downloads it once.
An index returns index_in_progress
Another MARM process holds the indexing gate, usually the other transport's poller or a Console index job. Deleting a project reports the same thing, since a delete during an index would be undone by it. Run it again in a moment.
A build returns build_in_progress
Another MARM process is writing the graph, usually the other transport's indexing worker. Builds are short unless it is a full rebuild; run it again in a moment.
A build returns lock_lost
The build was stalled long enough for another process to take over the graph, so it stopped partway rather than writing alongside it. Usually a suspended machine or a debugger pause. Whatever it indexed before stopping is kept, and re-running the build finishes the rest.
Memories not saving
Verify
~/.marm/directory exists and has write permissionsCheck available disk space
Test with simple memory: ask AI to save a single line and check with
marm_log_showFor HTTP mode, verify server health with
curl http://localhost:8001/health
Search returns no results
Verify memories exist: use
marm_log_showto list entriesUse
search_all=Trueto search across all sessionsTry simpler, more general search queries
Wait a few seconds; first semantic search loads the ML model
Memories appear then disappear
Check if MARM was restarted or crashed (data persists in
~/.marm/)Verify disk space didn't fill up
Check system logs for database errors
Lost or corrupted data
Stop the server immediately
Check
~/.marm/directory for backup copies (if you created them)Restore from backup: copy your backup
~/.marm/back to the home directoryRestart server
Database locked error
Close all AI client connections
Stop the server:
Ctrl+CBack up the entire database directory:
cp -r ~/.marm ~/.marm.backupCheck for processes holding the database:
lsof ~/.marm/marm_memory.db(macOS/Linux) or check Task Manager (Windows)If a process is holding the lock, terminate it
Verify database integrity:
sqlite3 ~/.marm/marm_memory.db "PRAGMA integrity_check;"If integrity check fails, restore from your backup
If integrity check passes, the lock should be released; restart server
Slow search results
First search is slower (model loads from disk); subsequent searches are faster
Large databases (1000+ memories) may take a few seconds
Limit searches: use
limit=10instead of unlimited resultsUse
marm_summaryto compress old sessions
Server using too much memory
Notebooks with many entries can accumulate; use
marm_notebook(action="clear")to prune active entriesClose unused AI client connections
Use
marm_compaction(action="review")to inspect staged compaction summaries when compaction is enabled
Error | Cause | Solution |
| Port 8001 occupied | Kill process on 8001 or use different port |
| Database directory not writable |
|
| Missing dependencies | Reinstall from |
| Multiple processes accessing DB | Close other connections, restart server |
| Semantic search model didn't download | First run takes time; be patient, check internet connection |
For memory behavior, transports, supported clients, compaction, and backup questions, see the FAQ.
Star History
Contributing
MARM welcomes contributors at every level. Code helps, but so do docs, setup notes, client testing, bug reports, benchmarks, and real workflow feedback from people using AI tools every day.
Good places to help:
Test MARM with more MCP clients, IDE agents, and operating systems
Improve docs, screenshots, examples, and platform-specific setup notes
Report bugs or confusing install steps with clear reproduction details
Share memory workflows, agent habits, and tool ideas from real use
Check out open issues
💡 Want to get your name on this list? Check out our CONTRIBUTING.md guide to get started!
Join the MARM Community
Help build the future of AI memory - no coding required!
Connect: MARM Discord | GitHub Discussions
License & Usage Notice
Copyright © 2026 Ryan A. Lyell. MARM is released under the Apache 2.0 License (see NOTICE for the copyright statement), and forks, experiments, and integrations are welcome. MARM also wraps third-party open-source components such as codebase-memory-mcp under MIT; see THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md for attribution. If you build on it, please make unofficial versions easy to distinguish from releases published by the official MARM repository so users know what they are installing.
Project Documentation
Usage Guides
README.md - This file: complete usage guide, tool reference, workflows, and architecture
PROTOCOL.md - MCP operating protocol
FAQ.md - Answers to common questions about using MARM
MCP Server Installation
INSTALL-DOCKER.md - Docker deployment (recommended)
INSTALL-WINDOWS.md - Windows installation guide
INSTALL-MACOS.md - macOS installation guide
INSTALL-LINUX.md - Linux installation guide
INSTALL-PLATFORMS.md - Platform installation guide
Project Information
CONTRIBUTING.md - How to contribute to MARM
CHANGELOG.md - Version history and updates
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.md - Contributors and acknowledgments
ROADMAP.md - Planned features and development roadmap
LICENSE - Apache 2.0 license terms
Available Tools
14 toolsmarm_code_lookupA
🔎 Find code: symbols/definitions, text patterns, or a symbol's source.
Use INSTEAD OF grep/glob. `kind=auto` picks: a qualified_name reads source;
otherwise it searches the graph by name/keyword. Set `kind=text` to grep code,
`kind=snippet` to read a symbol's source, `kind=symbol` to force graph search.
Parameters:
- query: symbol name, natural-language phrase, code/text pattern, or a qualified_name
- project: project name; omit to auto-resolve
- kind: auto | symbol | text | snippet (default auto)
- regex: for text search, treat query as a regex (default False)
- file_pattern: glob to scope search, e.g. "*.py" (optional)
- limit: max results, 1-200 (default 20)
Returns: graph lookup response, or a graph-unavailable error if the graph
backend is disabled or failed to start
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | auto | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| regex | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| file_pattern | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'graph lookup response, or a graph-unavailable error if the graph backend is disabled or failed to start.' It also explains the behavior of kind=auto based on query type. However, it does not detail the structure of the response or mention any authentication or rate limits, which would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with an emoji, bolded key terms, a concise overview, and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool. It is front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description effectively explains the tool's functionality and parameters, and it mentions the return type. Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools), it is largely complete. However, it could briefly mention what a 'graph lookup response' contains or provide an example to further aid understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. For each parameter, it explains its purpose and behavior: e.g., query can be 'symbol name, natural-language phrase, code/text pattern, or a qualified_name'; kind options are detailed; regex is for text search; project can be omitted for auto-resolve; file_pattern is a glob. With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find code: symbols/definitions, text patterns, or a symbol's source.' It distinguishes itself by saying 'Use INSTEAD OF grep/glob,' and explains the different modes (auto, symbol, text, snippet), making it easy to understand what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and its alternatives: 'Use INSTEAD OF grep/glob.' It also explains the behavior of each kind value, e.g., 'kind=auto picks: a qualified_name reads source; otherwise it searches the graph by name/keyword. Set kind=text to grep code, kind=snippet to read a symbol's source, kind=symbol to force graph search.' This gives clear context for selecting the appropriate mode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_compactionA
Compact related memories into a single summary to reduce context bloat.
Workflow: status/candidates → stage → review → apply/discard
action="status" — check if compaction candidates exist (run first)
action="candidates" — get pending candidates with source previews; each includes a ready-to-use prompt
action="stage" — submit your summary: {candidate_id, suggested_summary}; source_memory_ids optional
action="review" — inspect staged summaries before committing
action="apply" — commit a staged summary; source memories are marked compacted
action="discard" — reject a staged summary without touching source memories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| summaries | No | ||
| candidate_id | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: apply marks source memories as compacted, discard leaves source memories untouched, and candidates include a 'ready-to-use prompt.' This is meaningful contextual information beyond the schema, though it does not mention all 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a workflow arrow, and a bulleted action list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has complexity (six actions, multiple parameters) and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values and expected behavior for each action. The workflow is explained, but the response/return format for actions like status or candidates is not described, leaving the user guessing about what data comes back. This is a significant omission for a stateful workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains action values (status, candidates, stage, etc.) and the candidate_id parameter in context. However, the summaries parameter is never explicitly described, leaving ambiguity about its structure and usage (likely for batch apply, but not stated). This is a noticeable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence states the tool's exact purpose: 'Compact related memories into a single summary to reduce context bloat.' The verb (compact) and resource (memories) are clear, and the workflow action list distinguishes it from sibling tools like marm_log or marm_smart_recall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear workflow (status/candidates → stage → review → apply/discard) and tells the user to run status first. It gives context for each action but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_concept_buildA
🕸️ Extract entities/relationships from memory content into the concept graph.
Scope with session_name or project for a targeted build, or pass
search_all=True for everything (row-capped). Links extracted entities to
marm-graph code symbols when available. Call this before marm_concept_recall
— there's no data until a build has run at least once.
Parameters:
- session_name: scope extraction to this session; omit with search_all=True
- search_all: extract across all sessions, row-capped (default False)
- project: scope extraction to this project (optional)
- run_id: optional Console build-run ID for status polling
Returns: entities_extracted, relationships_created, code_links_created, duration_ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| search_all | No | ||
| session_name | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes extraction of entities/relationships, code linking, row-capping for search_all, and return fields. Lacks details on overwrite/durability behavior, but overall informative for a build tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured with bullet-like parameter list and clear action verb. The emoji is non-essential but not harmful. Could be slightly tighter by removing redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, manually lists return values. Covers scoping options, linking behavior, and prerequisite ordering. Missing error conditions and permissions, but adequate for a build tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates fully by explaining the purpose and interaction of all four parameters (session_name, search_all, project, run_id) beyond their titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (extract entities/relationships) and the resource (concept graph). Distinguishes from sibling marm_concept_recall by specifying the ordering dependency.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly explains scoping via session_name/project or search_all=True, and advises calling this before marm_concept_recall, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_concept_recallA
🔎 Search the concept graph: entities, their relationships, and linked code.
Query as a bare concept name for a lookup, or phrase it as "related to X"
to emphasize traversal — both route from query shape alone. Returns empty
lists (not an error) when marm_concept_build hasn't run yet or marm-graph
has no matching code symbols.
Parameters:
- query: concept name, or a "related to X" style ask
- session_name: scope to this session; omit to search across all (optional)
- limit: max entities/relationships returned, 1-100 (default 10)
- depth: max hop distance to traverse, 1-5 (default 1 = direct neighbors only)
- direction: outgoing | incoming | both (default both)
- project: scope to this project; entities with the same name in
different projects are distinct nodes; omit to search across all (optional)
- platform: scope to this client/platform; omit to search across all (optional)
Returns: entities, related_entities, linked_code
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| direction | No | both | |
| session_name | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that returns empty lists (not errors) when the graph hasn't been built or no matches exist, which sets correct expectations. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is implied from the search nature. This is adequate but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief paragraph followed by bullet points for parameters. It uses formatting (emoji, bold) to aid readability. While it could be slightly more concise, it doesn't waste words and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains inputs well but the return structure is only briefly mentioned ('Returns: entities, related_entities, linked_code') without further detail on the shape or content. This is a gap, but the tool's purpose is still understandable. It meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so for all 7 parameters: each has a clear purpose, default values, and acceptable ranges (e.g., limit 1-100, depth 1-5, direction enum). It adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches the concept graph for entities, relationships, and linked code. It uses a specific verb (search, query) and resource (concept graph). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like marm_smart_recall or marm_graph_trace, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on query styles ('bare concept name' vs 'related to X'), which helps with when to use each. However, it lacks explicit advice on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., vs marm_smart_recall for smarter retrieval, or marm_graph_trace for tracing). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_deleteA
🗑️ Delete a log session, log entry, or notebook entry
type="log" + session_name: delete specific entry by id or topic
type="log" (no session_name): delete entire session and all its entries
type="notebook": delete notebook entry by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| session_name | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adequately discloses the destructive behavior and scope of deletion. It explains what gets deleted based on parameter combinations, but does not mention irreversibility or cascading effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses bullet points and emojis, which improves readability but adds length. It is clear but slightly verbose for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool, the description provides sufficient context about what can be deleted and how. However, missing details on the 'target' parameter and no output schema reduce completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the interaction between 'type' and 'session_name' parameters, but does not explain the 'target', 'project', or 'platform' parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states that the tool deletes log sessions, log entries, or notebook entries. It distinguishes between different deletion behaviors based on the 'type' and 'session_name' parameters, making the purpose clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear patterns for when to use each variation: deleting a specific log entry, deleting an entire log session, or deleting a notebook entry. It implicitly guides the agent to use other tools for non-deletion operations, but does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_graph_architectureA
🏛️ High-level architecture overview: node/edge breakdown, modules, and schema.
One-shot orientation for a project — the de-facto module clusters, package
structure, and the graph schema (node labels + properties) folded in.
Parameters:
- project: project name; omit to auto-resolve
Returns: graph architecture response, or a graph-unavailable error if the
graph backend is disabled or failed to start
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the failure mode: 'graph-unavailable error if the graph backend is disabled or failed to start', and also notes that omitting the project parameter auto-resolves. This gives the agent useful expectations for both success and error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and well-organized: purpose in the first line, a clarifying sentence, then a parameter list and a returns line. Uses whitespace effectively and has no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers input, output (graph architecture response), and failure mode (graph-unavailable error). Without an output schema, it doesn't detail the response structure, but for an orientation tool this is a minor gap; the description is sufficient for basic invocation and expectation setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines a nullable string with a default. The description adds critical meaning: 'project name; omit to auto-resolve' clarifies the parameter's purpose and the behavior when omitted, which is far beyond the schema's minimal info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'High-level architecture overview: node/edge breakdown, modules, and schema' – a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like graph_trace or graph_impact. The noun phrase 'architecture overview' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly frames itself as 'one-shot orientation for a project', implying use when a high-level understanding is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools plus the 'orientation' wording makes the intended use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_graph_impactA
💥 Blast radius of code changes: git diff → affected symbols + risk.
Pass `since` (a git ref/date) or a `base_branch` to compare against. Returns
which symbols a change touches and how far the impact propagates.
Parameters:
- project: project name; omit to auto-resolve
- since: git ref or date to compare from, e.g. HEAD~5, v0.5.0 (optional)
- base_branch: base branch to diff against (default "main")
- depth: impact propagation depth, 1-5 (default 2)
Returns: graph impact response, or a graph-unavailable error if the graph
backend is disabled or failed to start
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| base_branch | No | main |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions the 'graph-unavailable error if the graph backend is disabled or failed to start' and describes the output conceptually. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether any mutation occurs, or any authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a bold purpose statement, followed by usage, a bulleted parameter list, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable. There is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since there is no output schema, the description explains returns: 'graph impact response, or a graph-unavailable error.' It also clarifies in the opening that the response includes affected symbols and propagation distance. This covers the essentials, though a more structured breakdown of the response object would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by listing all four parameters with meanings and examples: 'since: git ref or date to compare from, e.g. HEAD~5, v0.5.0', 'depth: impact propagation depth, 1-5', and defaults for base_branch and project. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line 'Blast radius of code changes: git diff → affected symbols + risk' precisely states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like marm_graph_trace (trace specific symbols) and marm_graph_architecture (architecture view) by focusing on impact propagation from a git diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: 'Pass `since` (a git ref/date) or a `base_branch` to compare against' and explains defaults for base_branch and depth. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, relying on the purpose to differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_graph_indexA
🕸️ Index a code repository into the graph, or check status / list known projects.
Pass `repo_path` to index a repo (returns the project name to use in every
other tool). Omit it to list indexed projects, or pass `project` to check
index status. Call this first — all other graph tools need an indexed project.
Indexed repos are re-indexed automatically in the background. Use
`action="auto_off"` to stop that, `auto_on` to resume, `auto_status` to check.
Parameters:
- repo_path: path to the repository to index; omit to list/status only
- project: existing project name for a status check; omit to auto-resolve
- mode: index depth — full | moderate | fast (default moderate)
- action: auto | index | status | list (default auto; infers from repo_path
presence), or auto_on | auto_off | auto_status to control automatic
re-indexing
Returns: graph index/status/list response, or a graph-unavailable error if the
graph backend is disabled or failed to start
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | moderate | |
| action | No | auto | |
| project | No | ||
| repo_path | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals auto-reindexing ('Indexed repos are re-indexed automatically in the background'), the effects of action options, and the possible graph-unavailable error on backend failure. It does not cover permissions or side effects on the repo, but covers the core behaviors well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a summary, parameter list, and return note. It front-loads the main purpose and stays under 200 words, but includes an unnecessary emoji and slightly redundant phrasing. Still, every section earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 optional params, multiple actions, auto-reindexing), the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, usage order, and return/error behavior. It lacks concrete examples or response shape, but no output schema exists, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by providing per-parameter explanations: repo_path as index vs list/status, project as status check, mode as depth, and action as explicit enum with inference rules. This adds substantial meaning beyond titles and enums.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Index a code repository into the graph, or check status / list known projects.' It also differentiates itself from sibling graph tools by explicitly stating 'Call this first — all other graph tools need an indexed project,' establishing it as the prerequisite setup tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Call this first' and explains when to pass vs omit repo_path and project. It outlines the three main action modes (index, status, list) and the auto-reindexing controls, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other graph operations, relying on the prerequisite statement to imply exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_graph_traceA
🧭 Trace call paths / data flow through the graph from a function.
`direction=inbound` finds callers, `outbound` finds callees, `both` for all.
`mode=data_flow` follows value propagation. `cross_service` attempts HTTP/async
boundaries but does not currently join a client call to its server handler, so
treat an empty result as unknown rather than as "nothing calls this".
Use for impact analysis, dependency tracing, "who calls this".
Parameters:
- function_name: function or method to trace from
- project: project name; omit to auto-resolve
- direction: inbound | outbound | both (default both)
- depth: max hops, 1-5 (default 3)
- mode: calls | data_flow | cross_service (default calls)
- risk_labels: add CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW risk tiers by hop distance (default True)
- include_tests: also return callers in test files (default False)
- include_evidence: per-hop `strategy` (lsp | language_rule | heuristic | unresolved)
and `confidence`, so a guessed edge is distinguishable from a resolved one
(default True). Test callers typically come back heuristic at low confidence
Returns: graph trace response, or a graph-unavailable error if the graph
backend is disabled or failed to start
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | calls | |
| depth | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| direction | No | both | |
| risk_labels | No | ||
| function_name | Yes | ||
| include_tests | No | ||
| include_evidence | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the cross_service limitation that an empty result means 'unknown' and defines evidence strategies and confidence levels so guessed edges are transparently distinguishable. Error behavior for an unavailable graph backend is also explicitly documented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The prepended emoji and short purpose line front-load the key operation. Parameters are grouped in a compact bullet-style list, and each sentence adds either setup, a limitation, or parameter behavior. It is information-dense without being bloated for a tool with 8 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is thorough for a complex tool with no output schema or annotations: it covers behavioral caveats, direction/mode choices, evidence semantics, and backend failure. The main gap is that the return value is only described as a generic 'graph trace response', and it doesn't define the result graph shape or edge fields. Still, this is quite complete for an agent's invocation needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description covers all 8 parameters with meaningful semantics. It adds constraints like depth 1-5, auto-resolution for project, direction/mode meanings, risk-label behavior, and evidence strategy values. This fully compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific action: 'Trace call paths / data flow through the graph from a function,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also lists concrete use cases ('impact analysis, dependency tracing, who calls this') that help orient an agent. The only slight overlap with the sibling marm_graph_impact is minor because this tool centers on graph traversal from a function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives actionable direction/mode guidance (inbound vs outbound vs data_flow vs cross_service) and states 'Use for impact analysis, dependency tracing, who calls this.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, nor name alternatives like marm_graph_impact, marm_code_lookup, or marm_graph_architecture. Clear context exists, but exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_log_entryA
📝 Write a log entry to the active session.
Entries are stored with a date, topic, and summary. If `entry` begins with
"Session: [name]" or "Topic: [name]", the active session switches to that name
and all subsequent entries route there automatically. Entries are also stored
as semantic memories so marm_smart_recall can find them.
Entry format: YYYY-MM-DD-topic-summary (date prefix is optional; auto-tagged if omitted)
Parameters:
- entry: the text to log; plain text or prefixed with "Session:" / "Topic:" to switch sessions
- session_name: override the target session explicitly (optional; active session used if omitted)
Returns: status, message confirming the entry or session switch, entry_id, memory_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry | Yes | ||
| session_name | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: entries are stored with date/topic/summary, session switching via prefix, auto-tagging of date, and storage as semantic memories for recall. It also notes return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise, but it effectively communicates necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining return values, complex session-switching behavior, and storage side-effects. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly without additional references.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully define parameters. It explains that 'entry' is the text to log with optional prefixes for session/topic switching, and 'session_name' is an optional override. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a log entry to the active session, specifying the resource (log entry, active session) and verb (write). It distinguishes from siblings like marm_log_show (read) and marm_smart_recall (recall), which have different verbs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to write a log entry) and gives detailed formatting and session-switching rules. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context from sibling names implies this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_log_showA
📋 List log sessions or show entries for a specific session.
Two modes depending on whether `session_name` is provided:
- No session_name: returns a summary of all sessions with entry counts
- With session_name: returns all entries for that session, ordered by date descending
Parameters:
- session_name: name of the session to inspect (omit to list all sessions)
Returns (no session_name): status, sessions list with session_name/entry_count, total_sessions
Returns (with session_name): status, session_name, entries list with id/entry_date/topic/summary/full_entry, total_entries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_name | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Describes two modes and return structures. However, does not disclose if the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects. Since it's a log viewer, likely safe, but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficiently covers purpose, modes, parameters, and return formats.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers both modes, parameter behavior, and expected return structure. No gaps in essential information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (`session_name`) with schema coverage 0%. Description fully explains that it's optional and its effect on output. Provides more semantic meaning than the schema alone, which only has type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists log sessions or shows entries for a specific session. Distinguishes two modes based on `session_name` presence. Action verb 'list' and 'show' combined with resource 'log sessions/entries' make purpose concrete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains which mode triggers when `session_name` is provided or omitted. Provides explicit context for each usage. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to sibling tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_notebookA
📔 Unified notebook — add, use, show, status, clear, or save
action="add": save or update a scratch entry (name + data required)
action="use": activate entries as instructions (names required, comma-separated)
action="show": list scratch entries for this session with previews
action="status": show currently active entries
action="clear": clear the active entry list
action="save": promote a scratch entry (or new data) into the permanent docs store
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| names | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| session_name | No | main |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe side effects: updating scratch entries, activating instructions, clearing the active list, and promoting to permanent docs. But it omits important behaviors like whether 'clear' also deletes scratch entries, whether 'save' removes the source entry, and session persistence semantics. This is partial transparency, not full.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally well-structured: a single-line summary followed by a bulleted list of actions, each one sentence. There is no fluff, and the format makes the multi-action tool easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters, multiple actions, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only explains a subset of actions and three of the seven parameters. It lacks the underlying conceptual model (scratch vs. active vs. permanent) and never mentions return values or session-specific behaviors. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for action, name, data, and names by specifying their required status per action (e.g., 'name + data required' for add). However, it completely ignores project, platform, and session_name, which are present in the schema with zero documentation. Since schema coverage is 0%, the incomplete parameter guidance creates a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a unified notebook manager with six explicit verbs (add, use, show, status, clear, save). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like marm_log_entry or marm_smart_recall by framing it as a scratch/active entry management tool, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Per-action instructions imply when to use each subcommand (e.g., 'add' for saving scratch entries, 'use' for activating instructions), and the 'notebook' context implies a general use case. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use this tool, and there is no high-level guidance on sibling tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_smart_recallA
🧠 Recall memories by semantic similarity or keyword match.
Searches stored memories for the most relevant matches to `query`.
Returns a ranked list of results with similarity scores. When a compatible
concept graph exists, the response also includes bounded relationship and
linked-code context without changing memory ranking.
Parameters:
- query: natural language search term or phrase
- session_name: limit search to a specific session (default searches active session)
- limit: maximum number of results to return (default 5)
- search_all: if True, search across all sessions instead of just the active one
- include_logs: if True, include log entries alongside memory results
- detail: controls how much content is returned per result
1 = summary only (~200 chars)
2 = extended context (~500 chars)
3 = full content
- exact_mode: retrieval lane to use
'auto' = automatically switch to exact/lexical for syntax-heavy queries
(config keys, file paths, CLI commands, API names, code snippets)
'exact' = always use deterministic FTS/BM25, no semantic re-ranking
'semantic' = always use vector similarity regardless of query shape
- project: filter results to a specific project (e.g. "marm-memory"); omit to search all
- platform: filter results to a specific platform (e.g. "claude-code", "cursor"); omit to search all
Returns: status, ranked results, graph_context, and results_count
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| detail | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| platform | No | ||
| exact_mode | No | auto | |
| search_all | No | ||
| include_logs | No | ||
| session_name | No | default |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-like behavior (search, return ranked results, graph context) but omits details like error handling, performance characteristics, or any destructive potential. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a concise header, summary paragraph, and clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Uses formatting (emojis, line breaks) for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return fields (status, ranked results, graph_context, results_count). Missing details on result structure or graph_context, but largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including enumeration for 'exact_mode' and implications for 'detail' levels. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool recalls memories by semantic similarity or keyword match, with a clear verb (searches/recalls) and resource (memories). It distinguishes from siblings like marm_concept_recall by mentioning similarity scores and graph context, but does not explicitly compare.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It describes what it does but does not state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for specific use cases like exact matching or code lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marm_summaryA
📊 Generate paste-ready context block for new chats
Reads log_entries for the session and returns a formatted markdown summary.
Equivalent to /summary: [session name] command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_name | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it reads log_entries and returns a markdown summary, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., session existence), or limits (e.g., entry count). Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a clear headline sentence, a brief explanation, and a command equivalence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single param, read-only), the description covers the core purpose and output format (markdown). It could mention if it only reads from the provided session or has size limits, but overall it is fairly complete for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'Equivalent to /summary: [session name] command', which hints that session_name is the session's name. This provides some context beyond the bare schema, but still lacks format details or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a 'paste-ready context block for new chats' by reading log entries and returning a formatted markdown summary. This distinguishes it from siblings like marm_log_show (raw logs) and marm_log_entry (adding entries).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by equating to a /summary command, indicating it should be used to get a compact summary. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like marm_log_show or marm_smart_recall, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 tool update
v2.40.0- Changed
marm_graph_trace2 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / include_evidenceAdded value: +{ + "default": true, + "title": "Include Evidence", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / include_testsAdded value: +{ + "default": false, + "title": "Include Tests", + "type": "boolean" +}
1 tool update
v2.37.0- Changed
marm_graph_index1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / action / enumPrevious value: -[ - "auto", - "index", - "status", - "list" -]New value: +[ + "auto", + "index", + "status", + "list", + "auto_on", + "auto_off", + "auto_status" +]
5 tool updates
v2.35.0- Added
marm_compaction - Added
marm_graph_architecture - Added
marm_graph_impact - Added
marm_graph_index - Added
marm_notebook
7 tool updates
v2.25.0- Removed
marm_compaction - Changed
marm_concept_recall1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / platformAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Platform" +}
- Changed
marm_delete2 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / platformAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Platform" +} - added
Input schema / properties / projectAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null, + "title": "Project" +}
- Removed
marm_graph_architecture - Removed
marm_graph_impact - Removed
marm_graph_index - Removed
marm_notebook
2 tool updates
v2.21.0- Added
marm_concept_build - Added
marm_concept_recall
12 tool updates
v2.17.1- Added
marm_code_lookup - Changed
marm_compaction6 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / action / titleAdded value: +"Action" - added
Input schema / properties / candidate_id / titleAdded value: +"Candidate Id" - added
Input schema / properties / summaries / titleAdded value: +"Summaries" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_compactionArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Changed
marm_delete6 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / session_name / titleAdded value: +"Session Name" - added
Input schema / properties / target / titleAdded value: +"Target" - added
Input schema / properties / type / titleAdded value: +"Type" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_deleteArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Added
marm_graph_architecture - Added
marm_graph_impact - Added
marm_graph_index - Added
marm_graph_trace - Changed
marm_log_entry5 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / entry / titleAdded value: +"Entry" - added
Input schema / properties / session_name / titleAdded value: +"Session Name" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_log_entryArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Changed
marm_log_show4 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / session_name / titleAdded value: +"Session Name" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_log_showArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Changed
marm_notebook8 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / action / titleAdded value: +"Action" - added
Input schema / properties / data / titleAdded value: +"Data" - added
Input schema / properties / name / titleAdded value: +"Name" - added
Input schema / properties / names / titleAdded value: +"Names" - added
Input schema / properties / session_name / titleAdded value: +"Session Name" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_notebookArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Changed
marm_smart_recall12 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / detail / titleAdded value: +"Detail" - added
Input schema / properties / exact_mode / titleAdded value: +"Exact Mode" - added
Input schema / properties / include_logs / titleAdded value: +"Include Logs" - added
Input schema / properties / limit / titleAdded value: +"Limit" - added
Input schema / properties / platform / titleAdded value: +"Platform" - added
Input schema / properties / project / titleAdded value: +"Project" - added
Input schema / properties / query / titleAdded value: +"Query" - added
Input schema / properties / search_all / titleAdded value: +"Search All" - added
Input schema / properties / session_name / titleAdded value: +"Session Name" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_smart_recallArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
- Changed
marm_summary4 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / session_name / titleAdded value: +"Session Name" - added
Input schema / titleAdded value: +"marm_summaryArguments" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{ - "additionalProperties": true, - "type": "object" -}New value: +null
1 tool update
v2.15.2- Changed
marm_smart_recall3 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / exact_modeAdded value: +{ + "default": "auto", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / platformAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null +} - added
Input schema / properties / projectAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "default": null +}
7 tool updates
v2.14.1- First observed
marm_compaction - First observed
marm_delete - First observed
marm_log_entry - First observed
marm_log_show - First observed
marm_notebook - First observed
marm_smart_recall - First observed
marm_summary
TDQS
Scored across 14 tools
Tools are mostly distinct: memory recall, logging, session listing, deletion, notebook, summary, compaction, and graph operations each have clear purposes. Minor overlap exists between smart_recall and log_show (both retrieve stored content) and between code_lookup and graph_trace (both explore code), but the descriptions differentiate them well.
All tools share the 'marm_' prefixaine, but the naming convention is inconsistent: some use noun phrases (marm_smart_recall, marm_log_entry, marm_graph_architecture), some use bare verbs (marm_delete), and some combine verb+object (marm_code_lookup, marm_log_show). The pattern is not uniform, making it slightly harder to predict tool names.
The stated count is 14, but only 11 tools are documented, which is a notable discrepancy. Even so, the 11 visible tools cover memory management and code-graph analysis without feeling bloated; a handful of tools for each subdomain is reasonable.
The surface covers search, logging, notebook CRUD, summaries, compaction, and code-graph analysis (index, lookup, trace, architecture). Missing explicit update operations and a dedicated session-management tool, but these are partially handled via log_entry parameters. Overall well-rounded for a memory + code context server.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Your memory, everywhere AI goes. Build knowledge once, access it via MCP anywhere.
An MCP memory server. One memory your agents share — across models, devices and apps.
Your versioned memory across every AI tool — context maps, personal memory, and tasks over MCP.
Persistent personal memory for AI assistants — save, search, and recall across every MCP client.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for persistent, compounding memory that automatically captures corrections and insights across AI sessions, enabling agents to learn and improve over time.5371MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to maintain persistent memory across sessions by capturing conversations, extracting durable knowledge, and injecting relevant context, supporting various MCP-compatible platforms.12MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceMCP server providing persistent memory and context for AI tools, including semantic memory, knowledge graph, and session history to avoid starting from scratch in every conversation.3514MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that provides AI agents with persistent memory, cross-agent sharing, and context management, enabling them to remember conversations, track complex tasks, and evolve skills across tools.2MIT