io.github.hermes-labs-ai/fidelis-memory
OfficialThis server provides local-first, zero-LLM memory retrieval tools that let AI agents recall, search, check, and re-orient on stored notes/passages without calling a model for retrieval.
fidelis_recall: retrieve relevant memories from the local store using natural-language queries, with optional limits; returns original passages verbatim.fidelis_query: fast vector-only search over memories with no LLM filter, useful for quick lookups.fidelis_health: check server status and memory count.fidelis_orient: context-sensitive re-entry into prior work—call it when a turn references a known project, decision, earlier work, maintenance, comparison, or possible reuse; it returns an evidence-bound orientation packet or abstains, and accepts recent turns for referent resolution.
Click on "Deploy 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., "@io.github.hermes-labs-ai/fidelis-memoryrecall what we decided about auth last week"
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.
Fidelis Memory
Local-first, zero-LLM memory for Codex, Claude Code, and AI agents.
83.2% R@1 in a checked-in 470-question LongMemEval-S retrieval run. A separate checked-in run answered 317 of 434 graded questions correctly (73.0%, Wilson 95% CI [68.7%, 77.0%]) with an LLM reading Fidelis retrieval. The default retrieval path itself makes no LLM call.
Stop re-explaining context to your agent. fidelis returns your original notes verbatim through a local-first service. Your agent already calls an LLM to think; it should not need another one just to remember. Designed for developers. The default zero-LLM retrieval path does not send memory content to an LLM. The documented fidelis init service configuration also disables mem0 and Chroma telemetry. That can reduce third-party data exposure, but deployments still own their security and compliance assessment.
your notes / sessions
↓
local memory store (~/.cogito/, fully local)
↓
fidelis retrieval (BM25 + dense + RRF, no LLM)
↓
original passages (verbatim, never rephrased)
↓
Codex / Claude Code / your agentWhat fidelis is:
model-API independent by default - the default retrieval path makes no model API call; local compute and storage still have costs
private - local memory store by default
faithful - original stored passages returned, not paraphrases
measured - checked-in LongMemEval-S retrieval and QA artifacts are linked below
installable - documented MCP paths for Codex, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot CLI, Gemini CLI, and OpenClaw
Fidelis is deliberately narrower than a hosted memory platform. Check the user-fit matrix before installing: it names the workflows 0.1.0 supports, the prerequisites it assumes, and the cases it does not yet serve.
Related MCP server: Mimir
Registries
Official MCP Registry —
io.github.hermes-labs-ai/fidelis-memory, latest published version 0.1.0.Glama MCP server directory — independent third-party server listing.
Docker / Glama
docker build . runs the MCP stdio server (fidelis mcp serve) by default —
what a registry build/inspector (e.g. Glama) talks initialize / tools/list
to — and needs no Ollama or running fidelis-server. To run the HTTP memory
server in a container instead, set FIDELIS_ENTRYPOINT=http (see
docker-compose.yml for the full stack including Ollama).
Quickstart
Platform support: macOS or Linux (Windows not yet supported). Install Ollama via Homebrew on macOS, or the Ollama Linux install on Linux. See Requirements for the full prerequisite list.
# 0. one-time: Ollama + the local embedder (~280 MB)
brew install ollama && ollama serve &
ollama pull nomic-embed-text
# 1. install Fidelis Memory from PyPI
python3 -m pip install "fidelis-memory==0.1.0"
fidelis init # background service (launchd / systemd)
fidelis watch ~/notes # auto-ingests markdown
fidelis mcp install --client codex # or omit for Claude Code
fidelis mcp serve # runs the MCP server over stdio
# Restart your agent client. Memory is on.Verify the installed release and the local service before configuring a client:
python3 -c 'import fidelis; print(fidelis.__version__)'
# expected: 0.1.0
fidelis health
# expected prefix: status: ok | memories:Then verify one real retrieval without relying on a fixed memory count:
mkdir -p /tmp/fidelis-verify
printf '%s\n' 'Fidelis verification phrase: amber heron.' > /tmp/fidelis-verify/note.md
fidelis watch /tmp/fidelis-verify --once
fidelis query 'amber heron'
# success: the result contains "Fidelis verification phrase: amber heron."Using Gemini CLI? After the local prerequisites and fidelis init, install
the native v0.1.0 extension directly:
gemini extensions install https://github.com/hermes-labs-ai/fidelis --ref=v0.1.0The extension launches the released MCP package through uvx and includes the
GEMINI.md context file. See the Gemini CLI extension details.
Package-name note: install Hermes Labs' package as
fidelis-memory. The import name and CLI remainfidelis. The separate PyPI project namedfidelisbelongs to NGdust/fidelis.
Linux users swap brew install ollama for the equivalent install from ollama.com. See Requirements.
Fidelis Memory 0.1.0 is also published in the
official MCP Registry
as io.github.hermes-labs-ai/fidelis-memory. Registry-aware clients can launch
the same released server directly from PyPI:
uvx --from "fidelis-memory==0.1.0" fidelis mcp serveThis starts the MCP stdio process; run fidelis init first when the local
Fidelis service and store have not already been configured. Version 0.0.94
introduced supported Codex MCP installation and context-sensitive orientation;
0.0.96 added the independently discoverable registry release; 0.0.97 was the
first tagged release that carried the Gemini CLI extension manifest; and 0.1.0
promotes the tested cross-client contract as the first minor Fidelis release.
What you notice immediately
After the four commands above, the next time you open Codex or Claude Code:
It stops asking you to repeat context you already wrote down.
You can ask "what did we decide last week about auth?" - and the answer cites your actual decision, not a generic OAuth lecture.
Architecture rationale you wrote in a markdown file two months ago surfaces when relevant.
Your project context carries across sessions instead of resetting at every new conversation.
Failed migration notes, naming conventions, founder voice memos - all queryable in your agent's normal flow.
Most of fidelis's value is not the benchmark; it's not having to explain the same thing twice.
Most AI memory systems rewrite your notes
Most memory systems rephrase content on the way out. The specific fact gets summarized into something general. fidelis solves this structurally - there is no LLM in the default retrieval path, so the store returns exactly what you put in.
You store:
auth tokens expire after 3600 seconds.
The 3600s window is non-configurable in our current contract.A lossy memory layer may return:
authentication has a configurable timeoutfidelis returns:
auth tokens expire after 3600 seconds.
The 3600s window is non-configurable in our current contract.The non-configurable qualifier survives. So does every other detail you wrote down.
What this enables in Codex, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot CLI, Gemini CLI, and OpenClaw
Once fidelis mcp install --client codex, --client copilot, --client gemini, --client openclaw, or the default Claude install is run, ask your agent:
"What did we decide about auth?"
"What failed last time we tried this migration?"
"Which billing constraint was non-configurable?"
"What did I say about Sarah's onboarding flow?"
The MCP fidelis_recall tool gives the agent the original passages before it composes an answer, not paraphrased summaries. The answer can stay grounded in what you wrote, with the qualifiers intact.
fidelis retrieves memory without an LLM. Your agent still uses its normal LLM to answer using the retrieved context. "Zero-LLM" applies to the memory hot path, not to your agent.
GitHub Copilot CLI
Copilot CLI loads MCP servers from mcp-config.json in its configuration
directory (~/.copilot by default, or $COPILOT_HOME). Fidelis writes the
documented stdio entry there atomically, backing up any existing file and
leaving other servers untouched:
fidelis mcp install --client copilot # writes ~/.copilot/mcp-config.json
copilot # restart, then /mcp list shows "fidelis"
# /mcp show fidelis lists its tools
fidelis mcp uninstall --client copilot # removes only the fidelis entryUse --settings /path/to/mcp-config.json to target a different file. The
copilot binary is not required at install time; if you prefer the host CLI,
the equivalent registration is
copilot mcp add fidelis -- "$(python3 -c 'import sys;print(sys.executable)')" "$(python3 -c 'import fidelis.mcp_cmd as m;print(m.MCP_SERVER_FILE)')".
Copilot does not currently expose a hook or automatic-recall mechanism to
third-party servers, so recall happens when the agent calls the
fidelis_recall, fidelis_orient, or fidelis_health tools.
Gemini CLI
Gemini CLI has native MCP management — gemini mcp add|remove|list, shipped
in v0.1.19 — and Fidelis registers itself through it rather than editing
settings.json. That matters: Gemini reads settings.json as
JSON-with-comments and its own writer round-trips your // and /* */
comments. A rewrite by Fidelis would silently delete them.
fidelis mcp install --client gemini # gemini mcp add → ~/.gemini/settings.json
gemini # restart, or run /mcp reload in a live session
gemini mcp list # shows "fidelis" and whether it connects
fidelis mcp uninstall --client gemini # gemini mcp remove, verified--scope project targets ./.gemini/settings.json instead of the default
--scope user (~/.gemini/settings.json); Fidelis refuses --scope project
in your home directory, where Gemini collapses the two to the same file.
Requires Gemini CLI v0.1.19 or newer on PATH, and an auth method already
configured — Gemini refuses every gemini mcp subcommand until one is.
Because gemini mcp add overwrites a same-named entry without asking and
gemini mcp remove exits 0 even when the name is absent, Fidelis reads the
targeted settings.json back after every run. It refuses to touch a fidelis
entry it does not recognize (--force overrides), and reports a silent no-op
or an unexpected entry as a failure rather than as success. Unrelated servers,
their env secrets, other settings keys, and the file's permission bits are
left as they were.
Recall happens when the agent calls the fidelis_recall, fidelis_orient, or
fidelis_health tools.
OpenClaw
OpenClaw keeps outbound MCP servers under mcp.servers in its JSON5 config
(~/.openclaw/openclaw.json, or $OPENCLAW_CONFIG_PATH). Because JSON5 allows
comments and trailing commas, Fidelis neither writes that file nor parses it:
it delegates every write to the documented openclaw mcp add CLI, and asks
OpenClaw's own read-only surface — openclaw mcp show fidelis --json, falling
back to openclaw mcp list --json — both before writing and afterwards to
confirm what landed.
fidelis mcp install --client openclaw # openclaw mcp add fidelis --command … --arg …
openclaw mcp reload # pick up the new server
openclaw mcp status --verbose # confirm the saved config
openclaw mcp doctor fidelis --probe # verify it connects
fidelis mcp uninstall --client openclaw # removes only the fidelis entryThe openclaw binary is required here, because it owns the write and is the
only reader that can be trusted with a JSON5 config. Use
--settings /path/to/openclaw.json to target a different config; Fidelis passes
it as $OPENCLAW_CONFIG_PATH on every delegated call, reads included, so the
state it reads back is the state of the file OpenClaw just wrote. If you prefer
to run the host CLI yourself, the
equivalent registration is
openclaw mcp add fidelis --command "$(python3 -c 'import sys;print(sys.executable)')" --arg "$(python3 -c 'import fidelis.mcp_cmd as m;print(m.MCP_SERVER_FILE)')".
Install and uninstall refuse to touch an mcp.servers.fidelis entry that is not
ours unless you pass --force, and exit non-zero rather than claiming success
whenever the read-back does not prove the change landed — including when
OpenClaw cannot report the entry at all, which is treated as unknown, never as
"nothing there".
Use cases & ROI
Three concrete reasons teams pick fidelis over hosted memory:
Model-API independence for retrieval. Memory lives on disk and the default retrieval path makes no model API call. Your agent still consumes its normal context and model resources when answering.
Local data boundary. The default zero-LLM path keeps notes and retrieval on the local machine, reducing third-party processor exposure. This architecture does not by itself confer SOC 2 or HIPAA compliance.
Team context. Agents that remember historical decisions, naming conventions, failed migrations, and the qualifiers on those decisions. The non-configurable detail you wrote down two months ago surfaces when relevant, in the founder's voice, not paraphrased.
How it fits
The diagram is at the top. Codex and Claude Code are the fastest paths to value. The retrieval engine is agent-agnostic - pair it with any LLM client. Codex registration uses its supported codex mcp CLI, and the resulting server configuration is shared by the Codex desktop app, CLI, and IDE extension on that host.
Benchmarks
Checked-in LongMemEval-S observations; these are local project measurements, not independent replications.
Metric | Value |
Retrieval R@1 | 83.2% |
Retrieval R@5 | 98.3% |
End-to-end QA accuracy | 73.0% (317/434 graded questions), Wilson 95% CI [68.7%, 77.0%] |
Retrieval-time model API calls | 0 on the default stage-1 path |
Raw evidence: retrieval aggregate · end-to-end QA summary
The QA tier wraps your existing LLM with a 140–180-token system prompt - the Fidelis Scaffold. See docs/scaffold.md.
Verify the zero-LLM claim yourself
# Unset any LLM API keys for this shell
unset OPENAI_API_KEY ANTHROPIC_API_KEY DASHSCOPE_API_KEY
# Optional: drop your network. Ollama runs on 127.0.0.1:11434 (loopback).
# `recall-hybrid` is the explicit-tier command. zero_llm is the default.
fidelis recall-hybrid "what did the user say about Sarah" --tier zero_llm
tail ~/.fidelis/server.logThe default zero_llm tier never makes an outbound LLM call. Optional --tier filter and --tier flagship modes do call an LLM, but only to select integer pointers - the server dereferences those pointers to the original stored text. The LLM cannot rephrase memory content.
Context-sensitive orientation (MCP)
The bundled MCP server also exposes fidelis_orient. It recognizes when a
turn invokes prior work—even when it is a statement such as “I need to
remember our Fidelis work”—and selects a bounded evidence lane for identity,
maintenance, conceptual reuse, comparison, decisions, historical state, or
current state. The returned orientation is a derived index; retrieved records
remain verbatim evidence with their existing IDs and metadata. Unrelated turns
explicitly abstain without calling the memory server.
Gemini CLI extension
Fidelis is also packaged as a native
Gemini CLI extension: the
gemini-extension.json at the repository root registers the same stdio MCP
server that the MCP Registry entry launches, plus a GEMINI.md
context file that tells the model when to call fidelis_orient and
fidelis_recall. It needs uv on PATH and a
running Fidelis server (fidelis init, see Requirements),
but not a manual pip install:
gemini extensions install https://github.com/hermes-labs-ai/fidelis
gemini extensions list # fidelis, with its GEMINI.md and MCP server
gemini extensions uninstall fidelisThe extension pins fidelis-memory==0.1.0; gemini extensions update fidelis
follows the repository's tagged releases. The first launch lets uvx download
the wheel and its dependencies. Gemini CLI 0.32.1 probes gemini mcp list
with a fixed 5-second timeout that ignores the manifest's 60-second timeout,
so that first launch can read Disconnected; run
uvx --from fidelis-memory==0.1.0 fidelis --help once to warm the cache,
after which the row reads Connected. If you also register Fidelis with
gemini mcp add, the settings.json entry takes precedence over the
extension's, so the two do not conflict.
Requirements
macOS or Linux (Windows not yet supported)
Python 3.10+
Ollama running locally with
nomic-embed-textpulled (~280 MB):brew install ollama && ollama serve & ollama pull nomic-embed-text # ~280 MB, one-time
Once Ollama and the embedding model are available, the quickstart covers the full init-to-first-recall path. The default retrieval path needs no memory API key.
Ollama is currently required to boot the service at all, including for the
default zero-LLM retrieval path. The BM25 + dense + RRF retrieval logic
itself makes no LLM call, but fidelis-server boots through mem0's
Memory.from_config(), and mem0's Ollama embedder validates its connection
at construction time — before any query runs. We installed fidelis-memory
from PyPI in a clean venv and confirmed this directly:
python3 -m venv /tmp/fv && source /tmp/fv/bin/activate
pip install "fidelis-memory==0.1.0"
python3 -c 'import fidelis; print(fidelis.__version__)'
# 0.1.0 — installs and imports fine, no Ollama needed for this step
COGITO_OLLAMA_URL=http://127.0.0.1:1 fidelis-server # Ollama unreachable on purposeConnectionError: Failed to connect to Ollama. Please check that Ollama is
downloaded, running and accessible. https://ollama.com/download
File ".../mem0/embeddings/ollama.py", line 30, in _ensure_model_exists
local_models = self.client.list()["models"]The package installs and imports cleanly without Ollama. The server process
— and every documented path that goes through it (fidelis health, fidelis query, fidelis recall-hybrid --tier zero_llm, the MCP server, and
fidelis.augment) — does not start without a reachable Ollama instance. There
is currently no lighter-weight standalone way to exercise the zero-LLM
retrieval path without the full Ollama + service stack. This is a real gap
between the "zero-LLM retrieval" framing and the actual boot dependency; we
are not fixing the Ollama boot coupling here, just documenting it honestly so
you know what to expect before you install Ollama.
Quick reference
fidelis recall "what did the user say about Sarah"
fidelis query "Sarah" --limit 5
fidelis add "raw text to extract into memories"
fidelis health
fidelis seed ~/memory/ ~/notes/fidelis add normally stores facts produced by the configured extraction
model. If extraction returns no facts, Fidelis preserves the original input
verbatim instead of silently losing it. The command still exits 0 because the
write succeeded, but stdout reports a stable degraded status:
status=stored degraded=verbatim-fallback-empty-extraction id=<uuid> count=1Automation that requires successful extraction must inspect degraded; exit 0
means the memory was stored, not necessarily that extraction succeeded. Because
mem0 does not distinguish a swallowed extractor failure from a legitimate
zero-fact result, the fallback intentionally favors durability.
Python helper for direct integration:
from fidelis.augment import augment
from anthropic import Anthropic
client = Anthropic()
answer = augment(
question="What did I say about Sarah?",
qtype="single-session-user",
llm_call=lambda system, user: client.messages.create(
model="claude-haiku-4-5", # any current Claude Messages model works
system=system,
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": user}],
max_tokens=512,
).content[0].text,
)What's running on your machine
After fidelis init:
Service:
fidelis-serverruns athttp://127.0.0.1:19420under your OS service manager (launchd on macOS, systemd on Linux). Auto-starts on boot. Logs at~/.fidelis/server.log.Storage: Chroma + SQLite at
~/.cogito/(the directory name is preserved from the project's pre-rename codename for v0.0.x compatibility - it will move to~/.fidelis/in a later major bump). No data leaves your machine in the default zero-LLM path.MCP: after installing for your selected client, Codex or Claude Code sees four tools:
fidelis_recall,fidelis_query,fidelis_health, andfidelis_orient.
To stop: fidelis init --uninstall. To wipe: rm -rf ~/.cogito ~/.fidelis.
Known limitations (v0.1.0)
Pre-release. Python function names and CLI commands may change. Pin the version if you build on it.
Best on macOS Sequoia / Ubuntu 24.04 LTS. Other OSes likely work but aren't gate-tested.
Direct server launches disable mem0 telemetry by default. This matches the service installed by
fidelis initand avoids telemetry exit handlers delaying graceful shutdown. An explicitMEM0_TELEMETRY=Truestill opts in. For the same boundary across Chroma, setANONYMIZED_TELEMETRY=FalseandCHROMA_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=Truebefore a direct launch;fidelis initincludes all three settings automatically.Temporal-reasoning and preference questions are the weakest qtypes in the QA scaffold (TR ~58%, Pref ~37% on the full eval). Single-session and knowledge-update qtypes are strong (95–100%).
The optional LLM tier ("flagship" mode) currently escalates ~80% of queries instead of the intended ~10% - an 8× cost miss we're transparent about. The default zero-LLM tier is unaffected.
qwen3.5:9b in thinking mode does not reliably follow the literal hedge instruction in the Fidelis Scaffold. Use Claude, an OpenAI-format API, or non-thinking-mode local models for reliable hedging.
What this turns into over time
Day 1: drop notes into ~/notes, run the four commands.
Day 2: ask your agent about yesterday's decision - the answer cites your original passage.
Day 7: your agent starts carrying project context across sessions; you stop re-explaining.
Useful for solo builders today; relevant for teams that need memory to stay local tomorrow.
Fidelis Memory for teams
fidelis is open-source under MIT and free for any use, including commercial. If your team has deployment requirements that the OSS path does not yet cover (centralized memory, multi-namespace isolation, custom authentication), write to founders@hermes-labs.ai.
For technical users
docs/user-fit.md- supported users, prerequisites, and explicit non-fitsdocs/releases/0.1.0.md- 0.1.0 release scope and acceptance evidenceROADMAP.md- outcome gates for 0.2.0docs/full-reference.md- full architecture, hybrid recall tiers, local server endpoints, troubleshootingdocs/scaffold.md- Fidelis Scaffold contract + drift-detection markersexperiments/zeroLLM-FLAGSHIP-evidence/- raw eval JSONs + machine-readable SUMMARY (per-qtype breakdowns, Wilson CI, F1/F1B baselines)
License
MIT. Built by Hermes Labs (Roli Bosch). Issues + PRs welcome.
Also from Hermes Labs
lintlang - Static analysis for AI agent configs, tool descriptions, and system prompts; zero-LLM, deterministic checks built for CI.
zer0dex - A local dual-layer memory pattern: a compact markdown index paired with semantic retrieval from a local vector store, queried before each message.
little-canary - Detects prompt injection by its effect on a sacrificial canary model, returning block/flag/pass before your primary model acts.
quick-gate-js - A deterministic JS/TS CI quality gate that unifies ESLint, TypeScript, build, and Lighthouse checks into one fail-fast result.
About Hermes Labs
Hermes Labs develops open-source reliability, evaluation, memory, and runtime-guard tools for AI agents. Fidelis is its local-first memory project. Other public software is listed at github.com/hermes-labs-ai, with research artifacts published separately on Zenodo.
For enterprise deployments and AI-reliability engagements: roli@hermes-labs.ai · hermes-labs.ai
On naming. Hermes Labs is named for Hermes, the Greek messenger god - patron of communication and interpretation, the herald who carries meaning between worlds. The thread to the work: hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation that takes its name from Hermes, is the philosophical anchor for an AI reliability engineering studio whose substrate is linguistic. Not affiliated with NousResearch's Hermes LLM line or their hermes-agent framework - different companies, different work.
Founder: Rolando (Roli) Bosch. Site: hermes-labs.ai Citation: Bosch, R. (2026). Hermes Labs: AI reliability infrastructure for autonomous agents. https://hermes-labs.ai
Quantitative source for the Fidelis claims above: the 470-question
LongMemEval-S aggregate and Wilson interval in
experiments/zeroLLM-FLAGSHIP-evidence/,
evaluated 2026-04-24.
Available Tools
4 toolsfidelis_healthB
Check the fidelis server's health and memory count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately implies a read-only health-check operation, but it does not disclose output format, what 'memory count' refers to, or any side effects or permissions. This is adequate but minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and object directly and earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, invocation is trivial, so no parameter guidance is missing. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'health and memory count' actually return, such as status values, units, or response shape. The ambiguity leaves the agent without a complete picture.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed here.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource ('fidelis server's health and memory count'), making the tool's role clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which sound like data operations (recall, query, orient), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor are there exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues. The usage is only implied by the name and brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fidelis_orientA
Context-sensitive re-entry for prior work. Call when a turn mentions a known project, decision, earlier work, maintenance, comparison, or possible reuse—even when the turn is not phrased as a question. Returns an evidence-bound orientation packet or explicitly abstains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| entity | No | Optional exact known project or concept name | |
| utterance | Yes | Current user turn | |
| recent_turns | No | Up to four recent turns for referent resolution |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: it returns an evidence-bound orientation packet or explicitly abstains. However, it does not clarify what the packet contains, whether the operation is read-only, or what triggers abstention beyond the listed topics.
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?
Three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The purpose, call conditions, and output/abstention behavior are compactly and effectively ordered; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description gives a clear high-level contract but leaves the orientation packet contents and the role of optional parameters under-specified. It is enough to guide an agent toward the tool, but not enough to fully set expectations about what comes back.
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 75%, so the schema already documents utterance, entity, and recent_turns. The description adds usage context for the utterance but does not clarify the limit parameter or define the evidence-bound packet contents. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully augments the schema, leaving the schema to carry most of the weight.
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 states a specific function: context-sensitive re-entry into prior work, and lists concrete trigger signals (known project, decision, earlier work, maintenance, comparison, reuse). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools fidelis_recall, fidelis_query, or fidelis_health, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-call guidance, covering a wide range of trigger phrases and noting that it applies even when the turn is not phrased as a question. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks the explicit exclusion that would make a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fidelis_queryB
Fast vector-only query over fidelis memories (no filter).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | Yes | Search query |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fast' and 'vector-only', which conveys performance and method, but it does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor any other side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. For a query tool this is a notable omission.
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 a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the most critical limitation ('no filter'). Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and scope. However, given the absence of annotations, it fails to mention that the operation is safe/read-only, and it does not describe the return format. These gaps make it less complete than it could be.
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 100% — both 'limit' and 'query' have basic descriptions. The description adds context about the overall query behavior ('vector-only', 'no filter') but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters.
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 a verb (query) and a resource (fidelis memories), and adds specific qualifiers ('vector-only', 'no filter') that distinguish it from a filtered query. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the qualifiers provide enough differentiation for an agent to guess it is a basic, unfiltered search variant.
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 usage when no filter is needed ('no filter'), which gives a condition, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer siblings like fidelis_recall or fidelis_orient. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so an agent must infer that filtered or more advanced queries belong elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fidelis_recallB
Retrieve memories from the local fidelis store. Two-stage recall with optional LLM filter; zero-LLM by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | Yes | Natural-language query |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context — 'Two-stage recall with optional LLM filter; zero-LLM by default' — revealing internal mechanics beyond a simple retrieval. However, it omits any clarification of the two stages, possible side effects, or output shape, and the optional LLM filter is not backed by any parameter in the schema.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and key behavioral constraints with zero waste. Every clause adds information.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It fails to explain how the optional LLM filter is toggled (no schema parameter exists for it), what 'two-stage' entails, or how this differs from fidelis_query. This leaves an agent with a meaningful gap in knowing how to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.
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 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented meaningfully. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('memories from the local fidelis store'), clearly indicating a read operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'fidelis_query', so an agent may struggle to choose between them without further inspection.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus fidelis_query or fidelis_orient. It mentions 'zero-LLM by default' as a behavioral trait, but does not state conditions such as 'use when you need deterministic recall' or 'avoid when...' This leaves selection to inference.
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.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
fidelis_health - First observed
fidelis_orient - First observed
fidelis_query - First observed
fidelis_recall
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
fidelis_recall and fidelis_query both retrieve memories and are distinguished mainly by filtering/LLM behavior, so an agent could easily choose the wrong one. fidelis_orient adds another retrieval-like path, though fidelis_health is clearly distinct.
All tools share the fidelis_ prefix and use consistent snake_case, making the style predictable. The minor deviation is that fidelis_health is a noun rather than an action verb like recall, query, or orient.
Four tools is a tight, manageable surface for a focused memory-retrieval server. The count is well within the ideal range and each tool has a recognizable role.
The domain is memory, yet the toolset only reads, queries, checks health, and orients. There are no operations to store, update, or delete memories, so agents cannot persist new information or correct stale memories.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Persistent memory for AI agents. Search and store durable facts, preferences and decisions.
Persistent memory for AI agents. Search, store, and recall across sessions.
Universal persistent memory and knowledge retrieval layer for AI agents and LLMs.
Universal memory for AI agents and tools. Save, organize and search context anywhere.
Related MCP Servers
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceProvides persistent local memory functionality for AI assistants, enabling them to store, retrieve, and search contextual information across conversations with SQLite-based full-text search. All data stays private on your machine while dramatically improving context retention and personalized assistance.3-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first memory and retrieval for private project knowledge. Enables indexing files, searching, and asking questions about project documents using local embeddings and LLM.6AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides local-first, cross-session memory for Claude Code, enabling semantic search across past sessions to retrieve procedures, decisions, or answers without exposing secrets.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceProvides fully local long-term memory for AI agents by enabling semantic search over notes and session logs using Ollama embeddings, with no external APIs or databases.MIT