brainy
Related Servers
Alternatives to brainy
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceThe infrastructure for AI teams: a self-hosted server that gives a fleet of agents shared semantic memory, tasks, direct messages, and session handoff. Any agent that speaks HTTP participates: Claude Code, AutoGen, raw API scripts, anything.479MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLets AI agents from any machine list, read, search, write, edit, move and link markdown pages and store files alongside them, all in a shared wiki. People can then see what the agents know through a web app showing the link graph, every page, and the history of who changed what.3AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to read and write a local-first knowledge base of plain markdown files in git, with governance gates for safe, hash-anchored edits.1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceGit-native long-term memory for AI agents: your markdown files are the source of truth, the search index is a disposable projection rebuilt from git, and every memory the agent writes is a reviewable git commit. Served over one OAuth-secured MCP endpoint with hybrid lexical+semantic recall and a gated, git-first commit_note write tool.79AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first, file-based memory layer for AI agents — one shared Markdown vault across Claude, Codex, Gemini, Cursor and any MCP client. Provides read/write memory tools with an audit trail, per-agent trust levels, and Git sync; no cloud and no lock-in.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to build and maintain a shared, git-backed Markdown wiki: they search, file, update and link notes with YAML frontmatter, keep verbatim sources, and optionally read code repos, so knowledge one assistant records is available to all the others. Runs without LLM calls, embeddings or a database, with the vault's own files defining page types, instructions and tools.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 27 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource+action: the task lifecycle verbs (claim/complete/fail/approve/reject/review/release/renew) are well differentiated by their governance roles, and document tools (write/append/propose/search) are clearly separated. Only mild potential confusion exists between the various task gate tools, but descriptions clarify intent.
Every tool follows a strict verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_agents, create_task, claim_task, write_document, pause_dispatcher), with predictable verbs for read/list/create/mutate operations. No convention mixing is present.
27 tools is on the heavy side and exceeds the comfortable 3-15 range. However, the surface spans five legitimate subdomains (tasks, documents, agents, execution jobs, dispatcher), so the count is defensible rather than bloated.
Task and document lifecycles are well covered (create/claim/complete/fail/approve/reject/review plus read/write/append/search/propose). Execution jobs are read-only (get/list with no create or claim path) and no delete operations exist, which are minor workable gaps.