Skip to main content
Glama
ideaswave

mcp-priostack

by ideaswave
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-priostack

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Structured-sh by structured-sh

      Structured-shofficial

      structured-sh
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server providing managed persistent memory for AI agents. Read and write structured state across sessions, tools, and restarts at 1000+ requests per second, with no infrastructure to self-host or operate.
      2
      Apache 2.0

    • mnemosis-mcp

      liyexiaoyi
      A
      license
      C
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with a human-inspired memory layer via MCP, enabling episodic and semantic memory recall, forgetting curves, consolidation, and contradiction detection. It integrates with MCP clients to offer local-first, dependency-free memory management.
      98
      1
      MIT

    • 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
      -

    • agenticmemory

      jyswee
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Persistent memory MCP server for AI agents that stores, recalls, and searches conversation history, key-value context, and long-term entries across sessions with semantic search and FIFO queues.
      61 npm
      1
      -
    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

    C2.4/5.0

    Scored across 40 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Many tools have overlapping or highly specialized purposes that are hard to distinguish without deep domain knowledge (e.g., noetic.observe vs noetic.query vs noetic.reason vs noetic.ground; noetic.propose vs noetic.simulate vs noetic.materialize). The descriptions use dense jargon, making it difficult for an agent to reliably select the right tool.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming is mostly consistent with a noetic. prefix and verb-style names (connect, disconnect, query, commit, grant, revoke). However, some names are abstract or inconsistent in style (e.g., noetic.orient, noetic.territory, noetic.focus, noetic.ground) and don't follow a clear verb_noun pattern like others.

    Tool Count2/5

    40 tools is a very large surface for a single server, and many tools are highly specialized or overlapping. While the server appears to cover a complex domain, the count feels excessive and would likely overwhelm an agent, especially with many niche operations (e.g., noetic.orient, noetic.territory, noetic.metrics).

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers a broad lifecycle: registration, connection, spaces, grants, access requests, assertions, checkpoints, commits, and receipts. There are some potential gaps (e.g., no explicit tool for deleting a space or revoking a session), but the surface is fairly comprehensive for the apparent domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources