F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceA persistent, conflict-aware memory MCP server for AI coding assistants (Cursor, Claude Code).
-
repo-memory-mcp
by andyast
Related Servers
Alternatives to repo-memory-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA local-first MCP server that gives AI coding agents durable project memory, dependency graphs, and impact analysis to answer team knowledge and cross-file change questions before editing.49 npm1-
- FlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that gives AI coding assistants persistent memory, structural code graph analysis, and safe multi-agent coordination, enabling them to answer architectural questions, track decisions across sessions, and coordinate safely in multi-agent workflows.394-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for semantic code search and explanation. Allows AI agents to search, ask questions, and manage memory about a codebase with local embeddings and LLM integration.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenancePersistent memory MCP server that remembers decisions and context across coding sessions, automatically logging and surfacing relevant knowledge as you work.25 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that provides a shared semantic memory layer for AI coding agents, enabling teams to store, search, and sync context, decisions, and knowledge across projects with project-based isolation and multi-backend support.141MIT
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Scored across 30 tools
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools for storing memories (store_memory, propose_memory, remember_project_note, store_decision) and retrieving memories (get_memory, get_memory_with_evidence, search_project_memory, list_memories) have overlapping purposes. Compatibility tools like 'prefer store_memory' add confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is mostly snake_case with verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies: 'remember_project_note' vs 'store_memory', 'checkpoint_task' vs 'active_checkpoints', and generic 'manage_memory'. The pattern is not fully uniform.
Tool Count2/5
30 tools is quite high for a repo memory system. Many are compatibility wrappers or redundant (e.g., delete_memory vs manage_memory). The core functionality could be covered with fewer tools, making the count feel bloated.
Completeness3/5
Covers CRUD for memories, search, evidence linking, and checkpoints, but lacks an artifact listing tool. Some lifecycle operations are duplicated. There are notable gaps, but core workflows are supported.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues