Skip to main content
Glama
Nanda-Kiran

Yunaki Memory MCP

by Nanda-Kiran
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: ingest scans and writes repo memories, repo_info shows identity, search retrieves memories, and write persists new ones. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools start with 'memory_' prefix, but three use verbs (ingest, search, write) while one uses a noun phrase (repo_info). This slight inconsistency is minor but noticeable.

    Tool Count4/5

    4 tools is appropriate for a focused memory MCP server. It covers the essential operations without being too few or too many.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers core operations (ingest, write, search, info) but lacks explicit update or delete functionality. The ingest tool is idempotent and can overwrite, but direct memory removal is missing.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided; description is minimal. Does not disclose what 'resolved identity' or 'memory location' entails, or any potential side effects.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single short sentence, no waste. But under-specified; conciseness without completeness reduces usefulness.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Very incomplete: missing parameter explanation, return value, and usage context for a tool with no output schema or annotations.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema has one parameter repoPath (optional, undocumented) and 0% schema description coverage. Description does not explain repoPath at all, leaving agents clueless.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Description uses specific verb 'Show' and resource 'resolved identity and memory location for the current git repo'. Clearly distinguishes from writing/ingesting/searching siblings.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions ranking and empty query behavior, but lacks details on side effects, auth, or performance.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema; lacks explanation of filters, limit, and repoPath usage.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Only 20% schema coverage; description clarifies query parameter behavior but does not add meaning for tags, type, limit, or repoPath.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Clear verb 'retrieve' and specific resource 'memories for the current git repo'. Distinguishes from siblings by search behavior and ranking details.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    Implied usage for retrieving memories, but no explicit statement of when to use versus siblings like memory_ingest or memory_write.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-creates the store and commits writes, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing memories, git conflict handling, or permission requirements. The behavioral information is useful but incomplete.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required) and high schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It adds context about the git-backed store and auto-creation. However, it lacks details on idempotency or behavior when a memory with the same title exists, which would improve completeness.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra param-specific semantics beyond the schema, such as formatting or constraints on the 'content' or 'tags' parameters. It merely reiterates the overall behavior.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb ('Persist a memory') and the resource ('for the current git repo'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by highlighting auto-creation and git-backed store. It explains the side effect of committing the write, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies this tool is for persisting a single memory, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like memory_ingest (possible bulk ingestion) or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Discloses idempotency, single-commit behavior, and scope (tracked+non-ignored files, docs). No annotations exist, so description fully compensates.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Three sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with action, then consequences and usage advice.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Complete for a side-effect tool: covers input, operation, idempotency, and use case. No output schema needed as write is the primary action.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema covers 100% of parameters with good descriptions. Description adds context about how parameters relate to tool behavior (e.g., depth to tree), but doesn't detail each param.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    States specific verb 'scan' and resource 'git repo', enumerates outputs (overview, tree, docs). Distinguishes from siblings like memory_repo_info and memory_search.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly advises 'Run this once when adopting a repo to seed memory', clearly indicating when to use. Sibling tool names provide alternative contexts.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

yunaki-memory-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

yunaki-memory-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Nanda-Kiran/yunaki-memory-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server