devrecall
Related Servers
Alternatives to devrecall
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceLocal-first memory for AI coding agents. Indexes your Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Cline and Gemini CLI history by repo/branch/worktree and hands a context capsule (decisions, touched files, next steps) to the next agent over MCP.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceSemantic codebase search + persistent working memory for AI code editors. Local, zero-config, MCP. No API key.8232MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first, auditable memory for Codex, Claude Code, and MCP clients. It stores scoped user/project memory in SQLite or Postgres, serves read-only recall and inspection tools by default, and supports opt-in governed writeback with review and forget controls.8195 npm17MIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenancePersistent, local memory for AI coding agents that learns how you work, not just what you said. Supports Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, and any MCP client.76150 PyPI68MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceShared, code-grounded memory for developers and their coding agents. Capture a learning once and the whole team plus every agent recalls it; memory is grounded in your code and stored as git-tracked JSON reviewed in PRs, with citations validated on write and stale memory withheld from recall. Works with any MCP client.1133GPL 3.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceIndexes git history, shell commands with exit codes, project docs, and opt-in assistant transcripts into a local SQLite database, then serves ranked, token-budgeted context back over MCP. Uniquely links a failed shell command to the commit that fixed it, so agents can recall what was already tried and what worked.6256 npm13MIT
TDQS
Scored across 17 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes—search, list, count, drill-down, and work-item aggregation are separated well. The main overlaps are get_related_activities vs get_work_item, and search_activities vs semantic_search_activities, but the descriptions provide enough guidance to choose correctly.
The core set follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern like list_activities, count_activities, and resolve_person. A few names deviate—who_worked_on, recent_decisions, current_time, and the abbreviated prep_meeting—but the overall style remains readable and predictable.
At 17 tools, this is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain spanning activity search, work items, people, summaries, and meeting prep. Most tools earn their place and support distinct workflows rather than padding the surface.
The read/query surface is strong: search, list, count, drill-down, person resolution, work-item aggregation, and pre-built summaries cover the main recall workflows. The notable gap is that log_event supports creating manual notes but there is no update or delete path, and there is no explicit metadata tool for enumerating sources or types.