Skip to main content
Glama
ocean-ding

shared-memory-mcp

by ocean-ding
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to shared-memory-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • SupraCortex MCP

      Xelson431
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables any MCP stdio client to share one local, evidence-backed project memory store, letting agents record verified facts and task outcomes, retrieve a token-budgeted context packet, and review, approve, or invalidate entries before they become active. Also supports handoff capsules and evidence-freshness recovery so stale or disputed memory is surfaced rather than silently reused.
      36 npm
      1
      MIT
    • Qoopia by qoopia

      Qoopiaofficial

      qoopia
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides persistent memory for AI agents via MCP, enabling agents to store and access notes, files, and session context across sessions and clients while under user control.
      4
      MIT

    • iaddram_local

      vermoraes133
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables compatible MCP clients to store, search, and checkpoint encrypted local project memories for AI agents through session-start, remember, and finish operations, without requiring a hosted service.
      Apache 2.0

    • Firmament Open Brain

      tswic-highdesert
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables each user to have a private, per-user memory store that persists across AI tools, allowing them to store, recall, search, list, and delete memories via MCP.
      -
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Both tools are op-dispatch mega-tools whose domains (cognitive graph vs. semantic spatiotemporal graph) overlap in graph/relation/edge concepts, making it hard to know which entry point to use. With 38 hidden ops in cg and 5 in stg, an agent must first call help to disambiguate, which is a poor tool-set boundary.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The two names cg and stg follow a consistent short-lowercase-abbreviation convention with no mixing of styles. They are not self-descriptive verb_noun names, but consistency is strong.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is thin for a server with this much implied functionality, and cg alone hides 38 operations behind a single tool. The op-dispatch design may be intentional, but at the tool level it feels compressed and forces discovery through a help op.

    Completeness4/5

    The descriptions suggest broad coverage: cg spans write/read/audit/protect/evolve/metacognition/predict/validation/edges, and stg covers relation/timeline/anchors/consistency/state_chain. Minor uncertainty remains because actual op semantics are hidden behind cg(op="help"), but the surface appears fairly complete for a shared-memory graph domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources