Verified Repo Memory MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: forget deletes, list enumerates, retrieve verifies and returns, search finds candidates, and store creates. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them, such as distinguishing retrieve (with JIT verification) from search (fast, no verification).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'vrm_' prefix and verb_noun pattern (e.g., vrm_forget, vrm_list, vrm_retrieve, vrm_search, vrm_store). This predictable naming makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools without confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a memory management server, covering core operations like store, retrieve, search, list, and forget. Each tool earns its place, providing a complete yet manageable surface without bloat or thinness.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface offers complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for memory management: store (create), retrieve/read (with verification), search (find), list (enumerate), and forget (delete). There are no obvious gaps, enabling agents to handle all typical workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't address pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when 'verify' is true. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool with parameters.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact. For a list operation with filtering and verification options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal value. It mentions 'status' filtering, which aligns with one parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning of status values (valid/stale/missing), the purpose of 'limit' or 'verify', or how they affect results. This leaves key parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List memories by status' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('memories'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like vrm_search or vrm_retrieve. It specifies filtering by 'status' but lacks context about what 'memories' are in this system.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vrm_search or vrm_retrieve. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'JIT-verify' (just-in-time verification) and 'return valid memories', but doesn't explain what verification entails, whether it's a read-only operation, what 'stale' memories are, or what 'touch' does. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes meaning.
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 the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how verification works, or the semantics of key parameters like 'includeStale' and 'touch'. For a memory retrieval tool with multiple configuration options, this leaves too much undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'candidates' (implied to relate to the 'query' parameter) and 'valid memories' (implied output), but doesn't clarify what 'query' should contain, what 'limit' controls, what 'includeStale' means, or what 'touch' does. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'JIT-verify candidates and return valid memories', which is somewhat vague. It specifies a verb ('verify') and resource ('memories'), but doesn't clearly distinguish what 'candidates' are or how this differs from sibling tools like vrm_search or vrm_list. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vrm_search or vrm_list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Snippets are auto-extracted' which adds some context about automation. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'store'), permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to existing memories. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded. 'Store a memory with file citations' states the core purpose immediately, and 'Snippets are auto-extracted' adds a key feature. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'memory' entails, how citations work, what the tool returns, or error conditions. For a storage tool with multiple parameters and siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'file citations' which relates to the 'citations' parameter, and 'memory' which might relate to 'subject' or 'fact'. However, it doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters (subject, fact, reason, tags, ttlDays, citations) or their purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Store a memory with file citations' specifies the verb (store) and resource (memory). It distinguishes from siblings like vrm_list (list) and vrm_retrieve (retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from vrm_search, which might also involve memory operations.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vrm_list or vrm_search. It mentions 'Snippets are auto-extracted' which hints at a feature, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying mutation/destructive), but doesn't clarify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'hardDelete' parameter suggests deletion behavior varies, but the description doesn't explain this. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core action ('Manually delete') immediately. Every word earns its place - 'Manually' distinguishes from automatic deletion, 'delete' specifies the action, 'a memory' identifies the resource, and 'by ID' indicates the key parameter. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 deletion tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory' in this system, whether deletion affects related data, what confirmation or response to expect, or the implications of the hardDelete parameter. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID' which maps to the memoryId parameter, but doesn't explain the UUID format requirement. It completely ignores the 'hardDelete' parameter and its default value (true), leaving the agent to guess what this boolean controls. The description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.
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 ('Manually delete') and target resource ('a memory by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, retrieve, search, store) by focusing on deletion rather than querying or storage operations. However, it doesn't specify what type of memory system this operates on or the broader context.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to know a memory ID first), when deletion is appropriate versus other operations, or what happens after deletion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling tools alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'no JIT verification, fast' which hints at performance and validation behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'candidates' refers to in this context. More behavioral context is needed for a mutation or search tool.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary details.
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 the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'candidates' are, how results are returned, or provide enough context for effective use, especially compared to siblings like 'vrm_list' or 'vrm_retrieve.'
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain what 'query' searches (e.g., names, skills), what 'limit' controls, or what 'includeExpired' means regarding candidates. This leaves key parameter meanings unclear beyond the schema's basic types.
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 ('Search') and target resource ('candidates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'vrm_list' (which might also list candidates), missing full differentiation.
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 context with 'no JIT verification, fast,' suggesting this is for quick searches without real-time validation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'vrm_list' or 'vrm_retrieve,' leaving some ambiguity.
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:

[![verified-repo-memory-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cognitivemyriad/verified-repo-memory-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cognitivemyriad/verified-repo-memory-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![verified-repo-memory-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cognitivemyriad/verified-repo-memory-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cognitivemyriad/verified-repo-memory-mcp)

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/cognitivemyriad/verified-repo-memory-mcp'

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