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
      F
      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
      -

    • 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
      12 npm
      MIT

    • misMEM

      lucasmella-stack
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides persistent, cooperative memory for LLMs via MCP, with SQLite storage and tools for capturing, recalling, consolidating, crystallizing, and forgetting memories across sessions.
      3
      MIT

    • engram

      tanvi-s18
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to store, recall, and manage persistent memory across sessions through MCP tools, with reviewable handoffs and SQLite-backed local storage.
      1
      MIT
    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

    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