Skip to main content
Glama
NBibikov

cogvault

by NBibikov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to cogvault

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • memory

      go-ports
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides coding agents with persistent local memory by exposing tools to save, search, and retrieve decisions, bugs, and context as Markdown with hybrid keyword and semantic search.
      4
      MIT

    • Remnic

      joshuaswarren
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Local-first memory for AI agents: one store shared by Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, Pi, Hermes, OpenClaw, and any MCP client. Plain markdown with YAML frontmatter on your disk, hybrid BM25 + vector recall with per-result provenance (Recall X-ray), a correction contract, and the MemCorrect benchmark.
      213
      MIT

    • auxly-memory-cli

      Tzamun-Arabia-IT-Co
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Local-first, file-based memory layer for AI agents — one shared Markdown vault across Claude, Codex, Gemini, Cursor and any MCP client. Provides read/write memory tools with an audit trail, per-agent trust levels, and Git sync; no cloud and no lock-in.
      2
      MIT

    • Link

      gowtham0992
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to capture, structure, remember, and retrieve source-backed memory as local Markdown files, with reviewable writes and no cloud dependency.
      190
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are a clean read/write pair: recall searches memory while record writes to it. There is no plausible way to confuse them, and their descriptions reinforce the distinction.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use the identical `cogvault_` prefix followed by a single clear verb (recall, record). The pattern is perfectly predictable and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is a thin surface even for a focused memory store; the domain of persistent memory naturally invites a few more operations. It is defensible as a minimal core, but sits below the well-scoped 3-15 range.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers create and read but has no update, delete/forget, or list operations, leaving common memory-lifecycle tasks (correcting a stale fact, removing sensitive data) as dead ends. Core recall/record workflows do work.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources