SmartMemory
Related Servers
Alternatives to SmartMemory
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides LLMs with full read/write access to an Open Knowledge Format (OKF) knowledge bundle, enabling structured, persistent long-term memory.11MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA local MCP server that gives LLMs long-term memory by indexing code, infrastructure, logs, and docs into a queryable graph. It enables semantic and structural search, evidence-backed reasoning, and tracked plans that persist across sessions and teams.1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA local MCP memory server giving LLMs a persistent, auditable memory fabric with temporal awareness, relationship tracking, and contradiction detection.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceOpen-source MCP server that gives any LLM long-term memory using a knowledge graph and vector search hybrid. It stores entities, observations, and relationships, enabling semantic recall across sessions with automatic clustering and fail-loud infrastructure.50MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server that provides long-term memory for LLMs by storing and retrieving important facts, decisions, and preferences through smart semantic search and automatic organization.12MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that implements a heavily typed knowledge graph memory system with AI-powered entity and relation extraction, enabling structured knowledge storage and retrieval from unstructured text using predefined or custom ontologies.9-
TDQS
Scored across 14 tools
Most tools are clearly distinct, but load_custom_rule and suggest_rule both add SPARQL rules with different approval paths, creating ambiguity. Additionally, verify_inference's description mentions accepting/rejecting pending verifications, overlapping with get_pending_verifications and approve_rule.
All names use snake_case, but retrieval verbs are mixed (list, get, search, query) and rule-related tools use inconsistent actions (load, suggest, approve, reject). The naming is readable but not fully predictable.
14 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and each serves a distinct role in the memory and rule management workflows. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
Core memory operations (add, remove, query, search) and rule lifecycle (suggest, approve, reject, list) are covered. Minor gaps include no explicit update/merge operation for facts and potential confusion around handling rules extracted by load_document.