AI-MemoryHub MCP Server

by Traceless-zero

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
All seven tools have clearly distinct purposes: writing/updating events, querying, linking, anchor-level search, section reading, index rebuilding, and intelligent ingestion. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'memory_' prefix with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., memory_write, memory_query, memory_link). The naming is predictable and systematic.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool addresses a specific need for managing memory events without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
Completeness3/5
The set covers writing, querying, linking, section reading, and maintenance. However, it lacks an explicit deletion tool and a way to retrieve full event packages, which are notable gaps for a complete lifecycle.
Average 4.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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

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 atomic write, upsert, and overwrite behavior, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, failure modes, or concurrency. Basic behavioral info is present but not comprehensive.
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, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers key behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values. It also omits usage of optional body, trivial tag implications, and idempotency. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters.
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?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely confirms that tags/aliases/linked are string arrays. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool writes/modifies an event package with atomic write and upsert. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_query (query) and memory_read_section (read).
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 is the primary write tool but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like memory_ingest. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the bidirectional update to linked fields, but does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and effect, no extraneous information.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. Could mention what 'bidirectionally link' means operationally, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described as '事件包 ID'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'bidirectionally link' and the resource 'two event packages', specifying it updates the linked field in both front-matters. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_write or memory_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for linking event packages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_write or memory_query. It lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses statelessness, determinism, matching fields, sorting rules, and non-reliance on weights. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but provides adequate behavioral context.
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?
Description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information, front-loading the core action and key characteristics.
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?
For a simple query tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching fields, sorting, and behavior. It could mention the return format explicitly but is otherwise complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the fields searched and sorting criteria beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states it is a deterministic stateless retrieval tool for keyword matching on id/title/alias/tag/summary, and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not rely on popularity/weights.
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?
Description implies use for deterministic keyword matching without popularity bias, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_query_anchors or memory_read_section.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the matching behavior and return fields, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or limitations such as whether it is read-only or if it modifies data.
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 three concise sentences, with no fluff. The key information (what, how, when) is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and its typical use case. No major gaps are present.
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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: the tool matches on anchor sub-events within story packages, clarifying the domain of the 'q' parameter. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
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 tool's function: fine-grained recall on anchor sub-events via keyword matching, returning specific fields (package ID, anchor title, summary, location, score). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its use for story packages/long texts and when memory_query has low hit rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool when memory_query has low hit rate, providing a clear usage scenario. It implies alternatives (memory_query) but does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral aspects: it performs multiple steps (splitting, metadata generation, writing to .md and index, linking), is model-agnostic, and falls back to a heuristic when no LLM API is configured. This is comprehensive and avoids surprises.
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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and cover key aspects without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, including fallback behavior and model-agnostic property.
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?
The description thoroughly covers input handling and internal behavior but omits any mention of return values or output format. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent is left without information on what the tool returns, which is a minor gap.
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 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides overall pipeline context but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 tool's function: accepting raw text and executing a full pipeline to split into event packets, generate metadata, write to authoritative source with indexing, and establish links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_write (which likely writes a single packet) and memory_link (which creates associations) by describing a more comprehensive ingestion process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage for ingesting raw text into the memory system, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context from sibling tools makes it clear this is for initial ingestion versus querying or linking, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that .md is authoritative and rebuild doesn't lose data, which reassures about safety. However, it doesn't detail whether existing index data is overwritten or merged, or if any permissions are needed.
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 short sentences in Chinese, extremely concise. It front-loads the action and condition, with no wasted words.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage condition adequately. It could mention the effect on other tools (e.g., index becomes current) but that's not critical.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter details, but that's acceptable as no parameters exist. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: rebuilding index.db from all .md front-matter. It specifies the authoritative source (.md) and that data is not lost, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_write or memory_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'call when index is corrupted', providing a clear usage condition. It implies not to use it for normal operations, though it doesn't list alternative tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains reading by heading and use of locator. Implies read-only operation, but not explicitly stated. No contradictions.
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 in Chinese, front-loaded with purpose, then usage. No extraneous information. 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?
Simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema. Description covers usage pattern and parameter meaning, mentions context saving. Not 5 because missing behavior on missing heading, but adequate.
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 has 100% coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds meaning: heading is a subtitle fragment and can be locator from query_anchors. Adds value beyond schema.
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 states it reads a specific section of an event package body by subtitle, saving context window. Distinguishes from siblings like memory_query_anchors (which finds locators) and memory_query (likely retrieves full package). Verb '读取' and resource are specific.
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 instructs to use with memory_query_anchors: first query_anchors to get locator, then this tool with locator. Provides clear when-to-use and usage pattern.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![AI-MemoryHub MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Traceless-zero/AI-MemoryHub/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Traceless-zero/AI-MemoryHub)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![AI-MemoryHub MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Traceless-zero/AI-MemoryHub/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Traceless-zero/AI-MemoryHub)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Traceless-zero/AI-MemoryHub'

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