Mnemosure
Mnemosure provides a source-grounded AI memory layer that stores, links, and recalls facts from conversations, preventing hallucination and forgetting. Its MCP tools include:
recall: Answers questions using stored memories, providing a confidence level (certain, vague, unknown) and citing source memory IDs. If evidence is insufficient, it honestly replies "not in the record."
remember: Extracts durable facts (decisions, changes, failures, facts) from conversation text, automatically filtering chatter and linking new memories to existing ones—such as marking old decisions as superseded or linking a decision back to the failure that caused it.
list_memories: Lists all currently active memories (optionally including superseded ones), showing each memory's ID, content, kind, scope, status, and source citation.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MnemosureRecall the decision about the API versioning strategy."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Mnemosure
English | 한국어
An AI memory layer that says "I don't know" when it doesn't, and cites its source when it does.
Across many sessions of AI-assisted work, two failures compound: the assistant forgets decisions that were made, and it hallucinates ones that were not. Mnemosure is a source-grounded memory layer that attacks both.
Its core claim: it does not invent what it cannot remember, and it does not drop what it remembers.
One API key (OpenRouter) drives the whole pipeline — pick any chat, embedding, and rerank model you like (Claude, GPT, Qwen, …), or compute embeddings locally with no key at all.

Demo UI (Korean). In the recall curve, Mnemosure (blue) keeps answering early questions correctly as sessions pile up, while summary-handoff (red) decays to zero. The table labels each system's actual answer per question — green = accurate, red = hallucination, gray = omission.
What it does
Stores durable facts from a conversation — decisions, changes, failures, established facts — and throws away the chatter.
Links memories over time: when a new decision overrides an old one, the old one is marked
superseded; the reason for a change is linked back to the failure that caused it (because).Recalls with a confidence level and citations. When the evidence overrides an old memory, the answer corrects the old fact instead of repeating it. When there is no evidence, it answers "not in the record" instead of guessing.
Every answer comes back as one of three confidence levels — certain / vague / unknown — with the source of each cited memory.
Related MCP server: Nahuali
Architecture
flowchart TB
MCP["MCP server · stdio<br/>recall · remember · list_memories"]
WEB["Demo web · FastAPI<br/>/ask · /memories · /results"]
subgraph Ingest["Ingest (remember)"]
direction TB
S["Session text"] --> EX["Extract · flash chat model<br/>decision / change / failure / fact"]
EX --> EMB1["Embed · bge-m3 · 1024d"]
EMB1 --> LINK["Link associations<br/>supersedes: cosine ≥ 0.35 → flash verdict<br/>because: failure, cosine ≥ 0.15 → flash is_cause"]
LINK --> STORE[("memories.json<br/>(JSON warehouse)")]
end
subgraph Recall["Recall (recall)"]
direction TB
Q["Query"] --> EMB2["Embed query"]
EMB2 --> COS["Cosine top-6<br/>superseded included"]
COS --> RR["Rerank (optional)<br/>top score under floor → 'unknown'"]
RR --> EXP["Associative expand<br/>supersedes / because · 2 hops"]
EXP --> ANS["Answer · brain chat model · temp 0<br/>confidence + answer + citations"]
end
MCP --> S
MCP --> Q
WEB --> Q
STORE -. retrieve .-> COS
STORE -. expand .-> EXPIngest (mnemosure/memory/store.py): a session is passed to the flash chat model, which extracts only what will matter later. Each memory is embedded, then two kinds of association are drawn — a lexical prefilter (cosine similarity) proposes candidates and the flash model makes the final call, so nothing is linked on surface similarity alone. Failures are never superseded (lessons are kept forever).
Recall (mnemosure/memory/recall.py): the query is embedded and the top candidates are pulled — including superseded ones, because correcting a stale belief requires finding it first. The rerank model re-orders by relevance; if even the best hit is too weak, the answer is unknown rather than a guess. The surviving seeds are expanded two hops along their supersedes/because links, and the brain model composes the final answer grounded only in that evidence (temperature 0). Broad "summarize everything" questions bypass top-K and ground on all active memories so nothing is dropped.
Models — four roles, the heavy ones run on your machine
Role | Default model | Runs where | Key |
Index (embedding, 1024-dim) |
| your machine | not needed |
Precision rerank |
| your machine | not needed |
Brain (answer generation) |
| OpenRouter | needed |
Flash (extraction, link judgement) |
| OpenRouter | needed |
Your raw conversations never leave the machine. Turning memories into vectors and searching them happens locally; the only outbound call is the one that composes an answer to a question. The high-volume side is local, so actual spend is near zero.
On first use about 3.4GB of weights (2.24 embedding + 1.11 rerank) is fetched once from Hugging Face and cached — after that it runs offline.
Speed depends on your hardware. fastembed defaults to CPU. Measured on a laptop CPU, embedding runs at 2.8 texts/sec, so a large store takes a while to index the first time — roughly 6 minutes for 1,000 memories, 2 hours for 20,000. Three ways to address it:
MNEMOSURE_LOCAL_THREADS=8 # more CPU threads (when there is no GPU)
MNEMOSURE_LOCAL_CUDA=1 # use CUDA (requires onnxruntime-gpu)
MNEMOSURE_LOCAL_DEVICE_IDS=0,1 # which GPUs to useNon-CUDA accelerators (AMD/ROCm and friends) are not covered by the standard onnxruntime
build, so on those machines it is better to send only embedding to that machine's
inference server — MNEMOSURE_EMBED_PROVIDER=api plus MNEMOSURE_EMBED_BASE_URL (see
"send only embedding elsewhere" below). Indexing still runs on your own hardware and
nothing leaves it.
To hand it all to the gateway instead, see "everything through the gateway" below.
Choosing where each role runs
What | env | Default | Other value |
Where embedding runs |
|
|
|
Where rerank runs |
|
|
|
Gateway URL |
| OpenRouter | any OpenAI-compatible server |
Gateway key |
| — | ( |
Model names are per-role, and local / api read different variables:
Role | when | when |
Embedding |
|
|
Rerank |
|
|
Brain | — |
|
Flash | — |
|
Four setups
1. As shipped — one key and you are done. Index local, answers via gateway.
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-...2. Entirely on your own hardware (no key) — point at an OpenAI-compatible server (Ollama, vLLM, …) holding a chat model. Embedding and rerank are already local, so outbound calls drop to zero.
MNEMOSURE_BASE_URL=http://<your-gpu-host>:11434/v1
MNEMOSURE_API_KEY=ollama # the SDK wants a value even if the server ignores it
MNEMOSURE_MODEL_BRAIN=<model you loaded>
MNEMOSURE_MODEL_FLASH=<model you loaded>3. Everything through the gateway — when you have no GPU and the first index is slow. This reproduces the pre-0.4.0 default.
MNEMOSURE_EMBED_PROVIDER=api
MNEMOSURE_RERANK_PROVIDER=api
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-...4. Free mode (no credits) — an OpenRouter account with no purchased credits can still
call the models marked :free. One switch swaps the brain/flash defaults to free models:
MNEMOSURE_FREE=1
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-...Per-role MNEMOSURE_MODEL_BRAIN / MNEMOSURE_MODEL_FLASH still override the free
defaults. Two caveats: free models are rate-limited per day (50 requests/day without
purchased credits — one remember makes several calls, so an active day can hit it), and
the free roster rotates — if a default disappears, pick another from
openrouter.ai/models and set it per-role.
Changing the embedding provider means re-embedding the warehouse once, because the
localandapidefaults are different models producing different vectors. Running it prints the instructions;python -m mnemosure.reembeddoes the move — see "Switching embedding models" below.
Two things to know
If rerank is api and you only repoint BASE_URL at a local server, rerank breaks.
The OpenAI-compatible spec has no rerank route, so mnemosure calls /rerank on the same
host directly (Cohere convention), and ordinary local inference servers do not serve it.
When moving BASE_URL, leave rerank on local (the default). To skip rerank entirely use
MNEMOSURE_RERANK=off — ranking and the honesty gate then use the first-pass cosine score.
The honesty-gate floor belongs to whichever model produced the score. Recall stops before calling the answer model — replying "not in the record" — when the best candidate's score falls below the floor. Which model's score that is depends on whether rerank is on, so there are two floors, with different conditions for re-tuning.
Rerank | Score the floor reads | Variable | Default |
on (default) | relevance from the rerank model |
|
|
off ( | cosine from the embedding model |
|
|
Those two defaults differ sharply because cosine distributions differ wildly per model. e5 (the local default) scores 0.83 even for unrelated pairs — measured on 1,503 chunks (top score among 40 candidates), the median was 0.88 with the answer present and 0.83 without. A 0.35 floor filters nothing there (100% false answers). Nor is 0.85 comfortable: the distributions overlap heavily, so even there it is 23% false "not in the record" and 13% false answers. Cosine alone is a weak gate, which is why rerank is on by default.
When to re-tune:
What you changed | What to re-tune |
Rerank model ( |
|
Rerank provider ( |
|
Embedding model — with rerank on | Nothing. Rerank scores read the question and document together, so they are independent of the embedding |
Embedding model — with rerank off |
|
So if you plan to change the embedding model, leave rerank on — there is then no floor to re-tune. Conversely, changing the embedding while rerank is off leaves the floor and the model mismatched.
Too high a floor answers "not in the record" for memories you actually have; too low a
floor answers from irrelevant evidence. Which way it is wrong is visible in the candidate
scores — recall returns the top score alongside the answer.
The two default rerank models genuinely differ in scale: the gateway model returns 0–1 relevance, while the local cross-encoder returns logits (measured -3.7 to +3.4). The local path therefore maps them through a sigmoid onto 0–1 so both read the same ruler, and even then the distributions differ, so each provider carries its own measured floor.
e5 prefixes are off by default. e5 models are trained with query: before questions
and passage: before documents, and the model card says to use them. Measured on the same
data, however, retrieval got worse:
Candidates | without prefix | with prefix |
top 6 | 72.8% | 66.0% |
top 40 | 85.4% | 81.6% |
All six candidate counts got worse, and the 75th-percentile rank of the answer slipped from 9th to 20th. It is not a double-prefix artifact either — fastembed applies no prefix preprocessing to e5 (it only mean-pools). Hence the default is off.
That said, the "queries" in that measurement were refined conclusion summaries, closer to
statements than questions. Real recall queries are questions, so the result may differ. To
test on your own questions, set MNEMOSURE_E5_PREFIX=on — turning it on changes the
vectors, so the warehouse id is marked and mixing is refused.
Retrieval candidate count
MNEMOSURE_CANDIDATE_K (default 40) is how many candidates the first pass keeps.
Anything cut here is invisible to both rerank and the honesty gate — set it too narrow
and, as the warehouse grows, more answers become "I have it but cannot find it", which
then leaves as "not in the record" and is indistinguishable from honest ignorance.
Measured on 7,340 chunks of research notes (share of questions whose answer was retrieved):
Warehouse size | 6 candidates | 40 candidates | 100 candidates |
19 chunks | 95.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
1,000 chunks | 75.7% | 86.1% | 93.2% |
7,340 chunks | 60.2% | 75.7% | 82.5% |
The bigger the warehouse, the more a wider candidate set is worth. Raise it past tens of thousands of memories; lower it if you want faster responses on a very small warehouse.
API keys are read only from the environment (or .env) and never hardcoded.
Defaults live in mnemosure/config.py (single source of truth).
Install
pip install mnemosure # the core product: memory library + MCP serverThen provide your OpenRouter key and run the MCP server:
export OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-...
mnemosure-mcp # stdio MCP serverWhere memories are stored: an installed copy starts with an empty warehouse at
~/.mnemosure/memories.json. Override the directory withMNEMOSURE_DATA_DIR, or pick a scope withMNEMOSURE_SCOPE—usershares one warehouse at~/.mnemosureacross every project;projectkeeps a separate.mnemosure/per project (the folder the server was launched from). Handy when registering the MCP server: match it to the registration scope.The pip package ships only the product (
config,llm,mcp_server,reembed,memory/). The web demo and evaluation harness live in this repository (clone it to run them).
Local models (default · nothing extra to install)
Embedding and rerank are computed on your machine with
fastembed. It is a base dependency, so
pip install mnemosure is all it takes.
embedding intfloat/multilingual-e5-large 2.24GB · 1024-dim
rerank jinaai/jina-reranker-v2-base-multilingual 1.11GB · multilingualWeights are not bundled — they are fetched once from Hugging Face on first use and cached, after which it runs without network (on an air-gapped host, place them in the fastembed cache directory manually).
To run these through the gateway instead: MNEMOSURE_EMBED_PROVIDER=api /
MNEMOSURE_RERANK_PROVIDER=api.
Switching embedding models (migration)
Vectors from different embedding models don't mix — the warehouse records which model built it, and Mnemosure refuses to run on a mismatch instead of failing silently. To switch models (including api↔local), re-embed once:
python -m mnemosure.reembed # default warehouse
python -m mnemosure.reembed path/to/memories.jsonQuick start (from source)
# 1) create and activate a project virtual environment
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
# 2) install dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt
# 3) provide a key for answer generation (embedding/rerank are local — no key needed)
cp .env.example .env # then edit .env and set OPENROUTER_API_KEY
# 4) verify all four model roles are reachable
python scripts/check_models.pyRun the demo
The repository ships with precomputed demo snapshots (under data/scenarios/<key>/), so the demo works right after cloning:
python scripts/run_demo.py # → http://127.0.0.1:8000It includes two scenarios — a pre-market trading bot and a SaaS subscription-pricing revamp — that you can switch between. Each scenario also lets you expand its source conversations, so you can confirm the memories were extracted from real multi-session chats, not hardcoded. The memory warehouse and the before/after evaluation panels render straight from the snapshot — no API key needed to browse them. Only /ask (live grounded recall) calls the models and therefore needs a key. To regenerate a scenario's snapshot from scratch (consumes credits):
python scripts/gen_demo_data.py # all scenarios (only missing ones)
python scripts/gen_demo_data.py pricing # a specific scenarioUse it as an MCP server
Mnemosure exposes the memory layer over the Model Context Protocol, so any MCP-capable agent (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Codex, …) can call it as a tool.
mnemosure-mcp # if installed via pip
python -m mnemosure.mcp_server # equivalent, from a source checkoutRegister it in your agent's .mcp.json (or equivalent). After pip install mnemosure, the console command is enough:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mnemosure": {
"command": "mnemosure-mcp",
"env": { "OPENROUTER_API_KEY": "sk-or-..." }
}
}
}The .mcp.json above works with any MCP client. Claude Code users can skip the hand-editing and register it in one line:
claude mcp add mnemosure --env OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-... -- mnemosure-mcpZero-install with uv — run it straight from PyPI without pip install (the console script mnemosure-mcp differs from the package name mnemosure, so pass --from):
{
"mcpServers": {
"mnemosure": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["--from", "mnemosure", "mnemosure-mcp"],
"env": { "OPENROUTER_API_KEY": "sk-or-..." }
}
}
}Running from a source checkout instead of an install? Use
"command": "/abs/path/.venv/bin/python","args": ["-m", "mnemosure.mcp_server"], and add"PYTHONPATH": "/abs/path/to/repo"so the package is importable regardless of the launcher's working directory.
Tools:
Tool | Signature | Returns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| list of active (or all) memories with source |
Note: the server itself calls the configured models for classification, recall, and grounding — it is agent-agnostic but assumes an API key is present (via env or
.env).
Evaluation approach
Quality is measured by labeling each answer's behavior — accurate / omission / hallucination / noise / honest — alongside our three-way confidence (certain / vague / unknown), rather than a single opaque score. The whole pipeline (extraction, supersession judgment, scoring) runs at temperature 0 for reproducibility. The demo serves a fixed snapshot so results are stable across viewings.
On the two built-in scenarios (19 questions total — trading bot 8, subscription pricing 11), the snapshot labels out as:
Behavior | Mnemosure | Summary handoff | Plain RAG |
accurate | 17 | 4 | 4 |
honest ("not in the record") | 2 | 2 | 2 |
omission (forgot it) | 0 | 11 | 7 |
hallucination (made it up) | 0 | 1 | 6 |
noise (didn't answer the question) | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Read this as a demo, not a benchmark: the scenarios and answer keys are our own (fictional, in Korean), behaviors are labeled by an LLM judge, and the snapshot was measured on a Qwen Cloud model mix (stated in the demo UI). All three systems answered with the same brain model — only the memory in front of it differs.
See mnemosure/evaluation/ (harness.py, judge.py, label.py, baseline.py, answer_key.py).
Project structure
mnemosure/
config.py # gateway, models, key loading — single source of truth
llm.py # the only gateway to models (chat / embed / rerank, local embeddings)
mcp_server.py # MCP tools: recall · remember · list_memories (stdio)
reembed.py # one-shot warehouse re-embedding (embedding-model migration)
memory/
store.py # ingest: extract → embed → link supersedes/because → save
recall.py # recall: embed → rerank → associative expand → grounded answer
forget.py # forgetting / relevance handling
storage.py # JSON-file memory warehouse (records its embedding model)
models.py # Memory / Association / Source dataclasses
evaluation/ # harness · judge · label · baseline · answer_key
demo/
server.py # FastAPI: /ask · /memories · /results · /sessions · /scenarios
index.html # single-page demo UI (scenario switcher + source-transcript viewer)
scenarios.py # scenario registry (sessions + answer keys + snapshot paths)
sample_sessions.py# fictional scenarios (trading bot, subscription pricing) for demo & eval
scripts/ # check_models · gen_demo_data · run_demo · demo_* helpers
data/scenarios/<key>/ # per-scenario memories.json + results.json (demo snapshots, committed)Deployment
The demo ships with a Dockerfile (single container, source + precomputed
snapshots; the API key is injected at run time, never baked in). It runs on any
Docker host. Quick local run:
docker build -t mnemosure-demo .
docker run -p 8000:8000 -e OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-... mnemosure-demo
# → http://127.0.0.1:8000 (health: /health)Upgrading from 0.4.0
0.4.1 leaves existing warehouses alone. Anything built with 0.4.0 still opens.
Fixed the cosine floor on the rerank-off path. 0.4.0 switched the embedding default to e5 but left the floor at 0.35, which was calibrated for bge-m3. Since e5 scores 0.83 even for unrelated pairs, anyone running
MNEMOSURE_RERANK=offhad an honesty gate that never closed. The default now varies by provider (local0.85 ·api0.35). The default path (rerank on) is unaffected.Added an e5 prefix switch (
MNEMOSURE_E5_PREFIX, default off). Turning it on measured worse retrieval, hence the default — see "Two things to know" above.
Upgrading from 0.3.x (breaking changes)
0.4.0 moves embedding and rerank to your machine by default (both were gateway-only before).
An existing warehouse will not open as-is. The default embedding model changed from
baai/bge-m3tointfloat/multilingual-e5-large, so the vectors differ. Running it prints exactly which variables to set. Pick one:Keep it —
MNEMOSURE_EMBED_PROVIDER=apiandMNEMOSURE_MODEL_EMBED=baai/bge-m3(same as 0.3.x)Move it —
python -m mnemosure.reembedonce
Rerank now defaults to local too. For the gateway, set
MNEMOSURE_RERANK_PROVIDER=api.The honesty-gate floor default now differs per provider —
api0.15,local0.20, because the two models produce different score scales. An explicitMNEMOSURE_RERANK_FLOORstill wins.Retrieval candidate count default is 6 → 40 (
MNEMOSURE_CANDIDATE_K), to reduce "I have it but cannot find it" answers as the warehouse grows.fastembed is now a base dependency —
pip install "mnemosure[local]"is no longer needed ([local]remains as an empty alias). About 3.4GB of weights is fetched once on first use.
Upgrading from 0.2.x (breaking changes)
0.3.0 replaces the Qwen Cloud (DashScope) integration with a single OpenAI-compatible gateway (default: OpenRouter):
Key:
DASHSCOPE_API_KEYis no longer read — setOPENROUTER_API_KEY(orMNEMOSURE_BASE_URL+MNEMOSURE_API_KEYfor another gateway).Confidence tokens in
recallresponses are now English:certain/vague/unknown(were 확실/어렴풋/모름).Warehouses built with 0.2.x (
text-embedding-v4vectors) must be re-embedded once:python -m mnemosure.reembed.
License
MIT.
Available Tools
3 toolslist_memoriesA
List the memory warehouse (by default only currently-valid memories).
include_superseded: when True, also include old memories that have been superseded each item: {"id", "content", "kind", "scope", "status", "source"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_superseded | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the default filtering by valid memories and describes the output format, providing transparency beyond the missing annotations. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss side effects, but this is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no wasted words: a clear initial sentence, a parameter explanation, and an output format outline. Every sentence serves a purpose and is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and output structure adequately for a simple list tool. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. Siblings exist but are not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'include_superseded' parameter with its effect ('also include old memories that have been superseded'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's title and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List the memory warehouse') and specifies default behavior (only currently-valid memories). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings 'recall' and 'remember', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'recall' and 'remember'. The description does not include when-not-to-use or alternative contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recallA
Answer a question grounded in stored memories. Says "not in the record" when it doesn't know; cites sources when it does; corrects superseded facts.
query: the question (any language — the answer follows the question's language) returns: {"confidence": "certain|vague|unknown", "answer": grounded answer with sources, "cited": [memory ids]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description fully covers behavior: says 'not in the record' for unknowns, cites sources, corrects superseded facts, and provides output structure with confidence levels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise: three sentences conveying purpose, behavior, and output format without redundancy. Front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers input parameter, output structure, and behavioral traits. Lacks mention of limitations like memory size or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage for the 'query' parameter. Description adds meaning: 'the question (any language — the answer follows the question's language)', compensating well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool answers questions grounded in stored memories, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings: list_memories (listing) and remember (storing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage by describing behavior (answers questions, handles unknowns, corrects superseded facts), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rememberA
Extract durable memories (decisions, changes, failures, facts) from a conversation or session text. When a new decision overrides an old one, links supersedes/because automatically.
session_text: the raw conversation/session text to remember date : 'YYYY-MM-DD' (defaults to today) title : human-readable session title used for source citations (optional) returns : {"stored": [{"id", "content", "kind"}, ...], "count": n}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| session_text | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic linking of supersedes/because and mentions the return format, which goes beyond just the function name. However, it does not describe idempotency or side effects beyond linking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise, with a clear structure separating purpose, parameter details, and return format. A few sentences could be more tightly integrated, but overall it is well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 output schema (but description includes return format), and sibling tools listed, the description provides enough detail for correct use. Minor improvement would be to explicitly compare with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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. It fully explains each parameter: session_text as raw text, date as 'YYYY-MM-DD' with default today, and title as a human-readable source citation. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'extract' and the resource 'durable memories', and adds specificity about automatic linking when a decision is overridden. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_memories, recall) by focusing on memory ingestion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to extract memories from conversation text) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like list_memories or recall.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
list_memories - First observed
recall - First observed
remember
TDQS
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing memories, answering questions from memories, and storing new memories. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb or verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores: list_memories, recall, remember.
Three tools cover the core memory operations (list, query, store) well, but a few more (e.g., delete, update) might be expected for full lifecycle management.
The tool set lacks explicit delete and update operations. While remember can supersede old memories, there is no way to independently modify or remove memories.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Agent memory that refuses to guess: evidence-gated recall, exact-source reads, verifiable deletion.
1Evidence-grounded, graph-connected, correctable memory for agents.
Certified SEC EDGAR fact memory for AI agents with zero hallucination and filing provenance.
Persistent memory and knowledge graphs for AI agents. Hybrid search, context checkpoints, and more.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceVerified memory for AI agents — agents propose memories that are quarantined until verified against evidence, and recall() returns only trusted, fresh, and in-scope facts, preventing poisoned or hallucinated data from spreading.121MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first memory for AI agents with evidence-backed recall, deterministic trust verdicts, self-inspection, and a tamper-evident audit history.3-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first, source-grounded memory for AI agents, with citations, bitemporal history, review-gated corrections, and MCP tools for search and recall.3Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides AI agents with persistent memory across sessions, enabling recall of decisions, clients, and deadlines with verifiable citations.-
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/jsiksn/mnemosure'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server