What can you do with this server?

The Memory Bank MCP Server is a centralized service for remote management of memory bank files across multiple projects. It provides: * Read/Write Operations: Access, create, and update specific files within a project * File Management: List all projects and files within specific projects * Project Isolation: Maintain secure separation between different projects * Consistency: Enforce consistent file naming and structure * Remote Accessibility: Access memory bank files via the MCP protocol * Type-Safe Operations: Ensure proper input validation and error handling

How do I use Memory Bank MCP Server?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Memory Bank MCP Server list files in my e-commerce project memory bank" 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.

en es ja ko zh

Memory Bank MCP Server

by alioshr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Memory Bank MCP Server

npm version npm downloads

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation for remote memory bank management, inspired by Cline Memory Bank.

Overview

The Memory Bank MCP Server transforms traditional file-based memory banks into a centralized service that:

Provides remote access to memory bank files via MCP protocol
Enables multi-project memory bank management
Maintains consistent file structure and validation
Ensures proper isolation between project memory banks

Related MCP server: AgentMemory Offline

Features

Multi-Project Support
- Project-specific directories
- File structure enforcement
- Path traversal prevention
- Project listing capabilities
- File listing per project
Remote Accessibility
- Full MCP protocol implementation
- Type-safe operations
- Proper error handling
- Security through project isolation
Core Operations
- Read/write/update memory bank files
- List available projects
- List files within projects
- Project existence validation
- Safe read-only operations

Installation

To install Memory Bank Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @alioshr/memory-bank-mcp --client claude

This will set up the MCP server configuration automatically. Alternatively, you can configure the server manually as described in the Configuration section below.

Quick Start

Configure the MCP server in your settings (see Configuration section below)
Start using the memory bank tools in your AI assistant

Using with Cline/Roo Code

The memory bank MCP server needs to be configured in your Cline MCP settings file. The location depends on your setup:

For Cline extension: ~/Library/Application Support/Cursor/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
For Roo Code VS Code extension: ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/mcp_settings.json

Add the following configuration to your MCP settings:

{
  "allpepper-memory-bank": {
    "command": "npx",
    "args": ["-y", "@allpepper/memory-bank-mcp"],
    "env": {
      "MEMORY_BANK_ROOT": "<path-to-bank>"
    },
    "disabled": false,
    "autoApprove": [
      "memory_bank_read",
      "memory_bank_write",
      "memory_bank_update",
      "list_projects",
      "list_project_files"
    ]
  }
}

Configuration Details

MEMORY_BANK_ROOT: Directory where project memory banks will be stored (e.g., /path/to/memory-bank)
disabled: Set to false to enable the server
autoApprove: List of operations that don't require explicit user approval:
- memory_bank_read: Read memory bank files
- memory_bank_write: Create new memory bank files
- memory_bank_update: Update existing memory bank files
- list_projects: List available projects
- list_project_files: List files within a project

Using with Cursor

For Cursor, open the settings -> features -> add MCP server -> add the following:

env MEMORY_BANK_ROOT=<path-to-bank> npx -y @allpepper/memory-bank-mcp@latest

Using with Claude

Claude desktop config file: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Claude Code config file: ~/.claude.json

Locate the config file
Locate the property called mcpServers
Paste this:

 "allPepper-memory-bank": {
          "type": "stdio",
          "command": "npx",
          "args": [
            "-y",
            "@allpepper/memory-bank-mcp@latest"
          ],
          "env": {
            "MEMORY_BANK_ROOT": "YOUR PATH"
          }
        }

Custom AI instructions

This section contains the instructions that should be pasted on the AI custom instructions, either for Cline, Claude or Cursor, or any other MCP client. You should copy and paste these rules. For reference, see custom-instructions.md which contains these rules.

Development

Basic development commands:

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

# Run tests
npm run test

# Run tests in watch mode
npm run test:watch

# Run the server directly with ts-node for quick testing
npm run dev

Running with Docker

Build the Docker image:
```
docker build -t memory-bank-mcp:local .
```

Run the Docker container for testing:

docker run -i --rm \
  -e MEMORY_BANK_ROOT="/mnt/memory_bank" \
  -v /path/to/memory-bank:/mnt/memory_bank \
  --entrypoint /bin/sh \
  memory-bank-mcp:local \
  -c "ls -la /mnt/memory_bank"

Add MCP configuration, example for Roo Code:

"allpepper-memory-bank": {
  "command": "docker",
  "args": [
    "run", "-i", "--rm",
    "-e", 
    "MEMORY_BANK_ROOT",
    "-v", 
    "/path/to/memory-bank:/mnt/memory_bank",
    "memory-bank-mcp:local"
  ],
  "env": {
    "MEMORY_BANK_ROOT": "/mnt/memory_bank"
  },
  "disabled": false,
  "alwaysAllow": [
    "list_projects",
    "list_project_files",
    "memory_bank_read",
    "memory_bank_update",
    "memory_bank_write"
  ]
}

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please follow these steps:

Fork the repository
Create a feature branch (git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)
Commit your changes (git commit -m 'Add amazing feature')
Push to the branch (git push origin feature/amazing-feature)
Open a Pull Request

Development Guidelines

Use TypeScript for all new code
Maintain type safety across the codebase
Add tests for new features
Update documentation as needed
Follow existing code style and patterns

Testing

Write unit tests for new features
Include multi-project scenario tests
Test error cases thoroughly
Validate type constraints
Mock filesystem operations appropriately

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

Acknowledgments

This project implements the memory bank concept originally documented in the Cline Memory Bank, extending it with remote capabilities and multi-project support.

Available Tools

5 tools

list_project_filesA

List all files within a specific project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectName`	Yes	The name of the project

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 conveys the core read-only behavior, but it does not mention the shape of the returned file list, recursion, error behavior for unknown projects, or any side effects. It is minimal but not contradictory.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning relative to the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple 1-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema. The description accurately conveys the essential function and scope. It omits details like file-entry shape and recursive behavior, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the schema already describes the parameter as 'The name of the project.' The description adds essentially no new meaning about how 'projectName' is used or validated, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states the action clearly ('list all files'), the resource ('files'), and the scope ('within a specific project'). It is distinguishable from siblings: 'list_projects' enumerates projects, while 'memory_bank_*' operate on the memory bank.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as 'list_projects' or 'memory_bank_read'. The context implies it is used to inspect files inside a known project, but the caveats and alternatives are not stated.

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

list_projectsB

List all projects in the memory bank

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the word 'list', but doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or complete; nor does it mention any potential side effects or limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative, and it is appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.

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 parameterless list operation, this description covers the core usage. However, the complete lack of detail about the return format or any read behavior means an agent must rely on the server response to learn the output structure, and given the absence of annotations and output schema, slightly more context could be useful.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema confirms this, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description includes a specific verb ('list'), resource ('projects'), and scope ('in the memory bank'), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_project_files, but the target resource is different enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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 is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives. It only says 'List all projects in the memory bank' and gives no context about use cases, ordering, or relationship to memory_bank_read or list_project_files.

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

memory_bank_readB

Read a memory bank file for a specific project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileName`	Yes	The name of the file
`projectName`	Yes	The name of the project

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'Read' without revealing any side effects, error handling, prerequisites, or return format. It offers no additional behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose without any waste. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention what the return value looks like, any potential errors (e.g., missing file or project), or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without critical context needed to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters clearly named in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond the schema's basic descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a resource ('memory bank file') scoped to a project. It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like list_projects, list_project_files, memory_bank_write, and memory_bank_update, which have different purposes.

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 reading file content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling would be more appropriate, leaving usage to inference.

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

memory_bank_updateC

Update an existing memory bank file for a specific project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	The content of the file
`fileName`	Yes	The name of the file
`projectName`	Yes	The name of the project

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which indicates a mutation, but does not state whether the update fully replaces the file content, what happens if the file does not exist (error vs. create), or any side effects. No permissions, reversibility, or error handling are mentioned. The description is too terse to give the agent confidence about the operation's behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and object. Nothing extraneous is present, and the length is appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

Given that the tool is a mutation with no safety annotations and simple parameters, the description should clarify the prerequisite (file must exist) and the difference from memory_bank_write. It does not mention that the file must exist or that the operation might fail if it does not. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves out important context about when and how to use this tool safely, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases.

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 already provides 100% coverage of all parameters with straightforward descriptions ('The content of the file', 'The name of the file', 'The name of the project'). The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameter usage, formatting, or dependencies. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no real enhancement.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing memory bank file for a specific project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings through the word 'existing', implying it modifies files that already exist rather than creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (memory_bank_write) or explain the difference explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that the file must already exist (via the word 'existing'), but it does not say 'use this for updates only, use memory_bank_write for new files'. An agent is left to infer the usage context from the sibling tool names. This is minimal guidance.

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

memory_bank_writeC

Create a new memory bank file for a specific project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	The content of the file
`fileName`	Yes	The name of the file
`projectName`	Yes	The name of the project

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create', with no mention of whether an existing file would be overwritten, permissions needed, or error scenarios. It does not say what happens if the project doesn't exist or if there are constraints. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It earns a high conciseness score, though it could have been slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

For a 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but somewhat sufficient given the schema covers all params. However, it lacks details about failure modes, idempotency, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent might need more context to handle edge cases correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a basic description ('The content of the file', etc.). However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new memory bank file'), and specifies it's for a specific project. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_bank_update by using 'new', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for creating new files only, nor does it reference update/read tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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.

5 tool updatesv0.2.1Sep 14, 2026
- First observedlist_project_files
- First observedlist_projects
- First observedmemory_bank_read
- First observedmemory_bank_update
- First observedmemory_bank_write

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

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-09-14 21:15 across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: listing projects, listing files within a project, reading a file, creating a file, and updating a file. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix two conventions: 'list_projects' and 'list_project_files' use verb-first snake_case, while 'memory_bank_read', 'memory_bank_write', and 'memory_bank_update' use object-first with a modifier. The pattern is inconsistent but still readable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a memory bank server, covering the essential operations without unnecessary bloat. The count feels right for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The server covers list, read, create, and update of memory bank files, but it is missing a delete operation. This is a notable gap in CRUD coverage, though agents can work around it by archiving or overwriting files.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

thoughtsOAuth
ai.thoughtbox.api
An MCP server that provides read access to your cloud storage providers, bank accounts and more.
Cloud Storage Finance
2
neverinfamous-memory-journal-mcp
ai.smithery
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
Version Control Developer Tools Project Management
320
Motecloud MemoryOAuth
io.github.motecloud
Cloud-hosted MCP server for durable AI memory
Knowledge & Memory Cloud Platforms
2
agentmemorymcp-mcp
com.clauxel.agentmemorymcp
A paid remote MCP for agent memory MCP, built to return verdicts, receipts, usage logs, and audit-re
Knowledge & Memory Autonomous Agents
2

Related MCP Servers

memory-bank-mcp-mongodb
Knowledge & Memory Databases
Sato-Isolated
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for MongoDB-powered memory bank management with multi-project isolation, version control, and real-time statistics.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-11 18:03 UTC)
4 npm
1
MIT
AgentMemory Offline
Knowledge & Memory Developer Tools
rmarquesa
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Provides local, project-aware memory for coding agents via MCP tools, lifecycle hooks, and a REST service, with no outbound network access.
Updated 10 days ago (2026-09-14 06:16 UTC)
4,226 npm
Apache 2.0
agent-context-substrate
Knowledge & Memory Autonomous Agents
thomaskawas
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI agents to maintain and query project memory independently of the underlying model, with versioned, auditable storage and multi-stage retrieval through a single MCP gateway.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-27 04:59 UTC)
MIT
AyA-MCP
Developer Tools Autonomous Agents Games & Gamification
testesvibecodeing
A
license
C
quality
B
maintenance
Provides a deterministic MCP server that orchestrates projects across web, backend, games, AI, payments, fiscal, and infrastructure domains, with safe file writing, audit logging, and framework-aware context routing.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-27 12:36 UTC)
88
MIT

Memory Bank MCP Server

Overview

Features

Installation

Quick Start

Using with Cline/Roo Code

Configuration Details

Using with Cursor

Using with Claude

Custom AI instructions

Development

Running with Docker

Contributing

Development Guidelines

Testing

License

Acknowledgments

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches