Skip to main content
Glama
auspham

Copilot Memory MCP

by auspham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Copilot Memory MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Agent Memory

      Masikomoore
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides a self-hosted shared memory service that lets AI agents capture and recall durable facts, decisions, and context across multiple tools and MCP-capable clients.
      3
      MIT

    • Sugar

      nKimura51
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides local-first, cross-session persistent memory that lets AI coding agents store, semantically search, and recall project-specific and cross-project knowledge via MCP tools and resources, with an optional task queue for autonomous execution.
      -

    • light-agent-memory-mcp-server

      AliYar-Khan
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides persistent, searchable memory for AI agents across any MCP-compatible client, storing project context, user preferences, and session learnings locally in SQLite with tools to save, retrieve, search, and manage them.
      12
      9 npm
      MIT

    • qcdoc-mem

      wychenzhou
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with persistent long-term memory over MCP, extracting durable facts from conversations, storing them as plain files, and injecting ranked memories into later sessions via recall and search tools.
      10
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The memory tools (recall, save, update, forget, stats) are clearly distinct, and the monitoring tools (monitor_command, run_long_command, watch_file, poll_url) each target a different mechanism. The only potential confusion is between monitor_command and run_long_command, but their descriptions explicitly differentiate repeated polling from single long-running execution.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a verb_noun convention (save_memory, update_memory, monitor_command, watch_file, poll_url, run_long_command). Minor deviations include recall_memories (plural noun) and memory_stats (noun_noun), which break the strict pattern but remain predictable and readable.

    Tool Count4/5

    At 9 tools, the count is reasonable and not overwhelming. However, the set mixes two unrelated domains (memory persistence and process/URL monitoring), making the scope feel broader than the server name suggests. Still, no tool is redundant and the number is appropriate for its combined purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The memory lifecycle is complete with recall, save, update, delete, and stats. The monitoring tools cover common asynchronous scenarios: repeated command polling, single long-running command, file watching, and HTTP polling. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tag-based listing, no explicit 'wait' tool), but agents can work around these.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources