Memory MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: remember/recall handle memory storage and retrieval, forget handles deletion/modification, and process/process_answers handle refinement. However, process and process_answers are closely related and could be confused as a single operation, creating minor ambiguity in the workflow.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb-based pattern in lowercase (forget, process, process_answers, recall, remember). The naming is uniform and predictable, with process_answers logically extending the process tool without breaking the convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for memory management. Each tool serves a clear function in the CRUD lifecycle (create, read, update, delete), and the count is neither too sparse nor bloated, fitting the domain appropriately.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core memory operations: remember (create), recall (read), forget (delete/update), and process/process_answers (refine/update). A minor gap exists in direct update without refinement, but agents can work around this using forget or process, making it largely complete for the domain.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the system will 'apply memory refinements based on the answers' which hints at some backend processing, but doesn't clarify what 'memory refinements' means, whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the data. The behavioral implications are underspecified for a tool that appears to modify memory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise at two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing additional context about system behavior. There's no obvious fluff, though the term 'memory refinements' could be more specific. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'memory refinements' are, what the tool actually does to the memory system, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from other memory-related tools. The lack of behavioral transparency and output information creates significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'original questions and your answers' which aligns with the 'questions' and 'answers' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how answers should be formatted or how they relate to memory refinements.
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 'Provide answers to questions raised by the process tool' which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about what 'memory refinements' means and doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'process' or 'recall'. It mentions the system will apply memory refinements, but doesn't specify what that entails.
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 mentions this is for questions 'raised by the process tool' which provides some context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'remember' or 'recall'. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or clear alternatives among the sibling tools.
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 states the tool performs deletion or modification, indicating a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage instruction. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter guidance). Overall, it's efficient and clear.
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's complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like safety, response format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('table' and 'description'). The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'plain English' for the 'description' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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: 'Delete or modify existing memories.' It specifies the verb ('Delete or modify') and resource ('existing memories'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember' beyond the action, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 minimal guidance: 'Describe what you want to forget or change in plain English.' It implies usage for memory modification but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'recall' for retrieval), or exclusions. This lack of context leaves gaps in practical application.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the system 'will figure out how to store it based on the table structure,' hinting at automated processing, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'store'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and input expectations, with no wasted words.
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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like mutability. For a memory storage tool that likely performs writes, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('table' and 'memory') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'plain English' for the memory parameter and suggesting inclusion of 'who, what, when, context, etc.,' but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Store a new memory') and resource ('memory'), specifying that it's stored based on table structure. It distinguishes from sibling 'forget' (deletion) and 'recall' (retrieval), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'process' or 'process_answers' tools, which might have overlapping memory-related functions.
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 minimal guidance: 'Describe what you want to remember in plain English.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forget' or 'recall', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as analyzing memories, asking clarifying questions, and requiring follow-up calls, which adds context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with mutation implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and workflow. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving analysis and iterative refinement), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines the process but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or full behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'context' usage for answers, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
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: 'Review and refine existing memories' with specific actions like analyzing for quality, duplicates, and gaps. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (create) and 'recall' (retrieve) by focusing on refinement, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 through phrases like 'Call again with answers to apply refinements,' suggesting a two-step workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'forget' or 'process_answers,' leaving some ambiguity about the tool's specific context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the tool is read-only ('without modifying them'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. This is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.
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 sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Each sentence adds clear value: the first defines the purpose and constraint, and the second provides usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-only tool. It covers the basic operation and parameter guidance but lacks details on what the recall returns (e.g., format, structure) or any error conditions, which could be important for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the 'plain English' aspect for the query parameter, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('recall memories') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'without modifying them.' This explicitly differentiates it from tools like 'forget' or 'remember' that likely involve modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Describe what you want to remember in plain English'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. This makes it good but not perfect for guiding usage relative to siblings.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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