Skip to main content
Glama
pgavali0318

@conxt/mcp

by pgavali0318
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to @conxt/mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • tartarus-mcp

      saluca-labs
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP memory server providing persistent, searchable memory for AI agents, powered by SQLite.
      1 npm
      1
      Apache 2.0

    • mnemon-mcp

      nikitacometa
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP server providing persistent, layered memory (episodic, semantic, procedural, resource) for AI agents, with search, versioning, and session management via a single SQLite file.
      69 npm
      3
      MIT

    • Procheiron

      logotheusneuro-cpu
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server that adds a trust layer to AI agent memory, enforcing independent review and tamper-evident audit chains for any memory store. It provides tools to search, get, propose, and promote memories under governance rules.
      MIT
    • sthayi by sthayi-ai

      sthayiofficial

      sthayi-ai
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP server that gives AI clients a shared, user-owned memory and skills plane, enabling persistent memory across apps via the Model Context Protocol.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct role in the memory lifecycle: remember proposes, recall retrieves approved, list_pending shows pending, approve/reject take opposite actions on pending, and forget deletes. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the descriptions reinforce their unique purposes.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tool names are lowercase verbs, but list_pending uses an underscore while the others are single words (remember, recall, approve, reject, forget). This is a minor deviation but the pattern is still predictable—most are simple imperatives. The inconsistency is small enough to not cause confusion.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a memory management system. It covers the essential operations without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate—not overly thin nor bloated.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers create (remember), read (recall), and delete (forget) for approved memories, plus approval workflow tools (list_pending, approve, reject). However, there is no update/modify operation for existing memories, and no way to list all approved memories (recall only returns relevant ones). These gaps, particularly the missing update capability, mean the lifecycle is not fully complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources