Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to brain-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables LLM clients to read, search, and write to a local Obsidian vault over MCP, with full-text search, vault analytics, health scoring, and policy-enforced file operations.
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides semantic search capability over Obsidian vaults and exposes recent notes as resources to Claude through the MCP protocol.
      9
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Serves as a unified MCP gateway to an Obsidian vault, enabling AI agents to perform hybrid lexical/vectorial semantic search, explore note graphs, and write through consent-based intent batches with conflict detection.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Give Claude (and any MCP client) real agent access to your Obsidian vault — graph traversal, Dataview queries, daily-note awareness, and more.
      25
      14 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides semantic search, note retrieval, source explanation, daily digests, and health checks for a local Obsidian vault, enabling MCP clients like Claude Desktop and Claude Code to query the second brain via natural language.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server exposing fast full-text and semantic search over an Obsidian vault, plus safe structured note read and write access for Claude.
      2
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 14 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target clearly distinct operations (read, edit, delete, move, graph, recent), and the descriptions actively steer selection, e.g. brain_context says to use it before brain_search, and brain_capture vs brain_write is spelled out as templated-capture vs hand-maintained note. The remaining fuzzy pairs are retrieval (brain_context vs brain_search) and fact storage (brain_remember vs brain_capture), which are close enough that an agent may still occasionally pick wrong despite the guidance.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Every tool shares the same `brain_` prefix and snake_case, which makes the set easy to scan. The stem after the prefix mixes verbs (search, read, write, edit, delete, move, capture, remember) with nouns (context, identity, facts, project, graph, recent), a minor inconsistency but still predictable and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    14 tools is squarely in the well-scoped range, and each one maps to a distinct vault operation rather than a variant of another. Nothing looks redundant or padding-like; the memory, note, and retrieval surfaces all earn their entries.

    Completeness4/5

    The note lifecycle is essentially covered: create (capture/write), read, edit, move, delete-to-trash, plus search, graph, recency, project briefings, and fact history. Gaps are modest but real — several descriptions mention notes being named 'without linking' yet there is no link-creation tool, there is no restore-from-trash operation despite delete pointing to one, and there is no way to enumerate or browse the vault by folder or tag.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessResponsive