memory-mcp-lite

by thuupx

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct scope or action: summaries by level (global/project/task), retrieval (search vs detail), and persistence (fact vs decision vs summary upsert). No two tools have ambiguous boundaries.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_*, search_*, remember_*, upsert_*). The naming is predictable and clearly conveys each tool's purpose.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server covers reading (3), searching (1), retrieving (1), remembering (2), and updating (2) summaries. This is well-scoped for a lightweight memory system.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core memory operations: read summaries at three levels, search, detail retrieval, and persist facts/decisions/summaries. Minor omission: no upsert_global_summary, but the domain is 'lite' and the gap is acceptable.
Average 4.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool persists data durably, returns { project_id, memory_id }, and specifies a default importance. It does not explicitly state whether it creates new records or updates existing ones, but the context suggests creation. This is sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single purpose sentence, followed by usage conditions, a default value note, and return format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It is well front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, 2 required, and a known output shape, the description covers the essential usage, distinguishes from the main sibling, and notes defaults. It could mention that the tool creates a new memory entry (implied but not explicit) and hint at how the output IDs are used. However, it is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only minimal value by reiterating the default importance and emphasizing that the user must confirm a decision. No additional semantic meaning beyond schema is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool persists durable technical decisions, listing examples (architecture choice, trade-off, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool remember_fact. The verb 'Persist' and resource 'technical decision' are specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions, naming the alternative tool remember_fact. While it doesn't cover all siblings, it effectively prevents the most common misuse. Slightly more comprehensive inclusion of other siblings would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return structure and summarizing what the summary contains, which goes beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence is purposeful and the description uses clear headers (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, RETURNS) for easy parsing. It is concise with zero redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and complete parameter schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It lacks only minor details on parameter interactions, but these are not essential given schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all five parameters described. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current task summary including what was done, blockers, and next steps. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle global or project-level contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific WHEN to use (user asks to continue, resume, or recall recent work) and explicit DO NOT USE conditions (no prior task state or global/project context). This is exemplary guidance for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns compact candidates (not full content) and describes the return shape. Provides search type (FTS5) and call-order context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, well-structured with labeled sections. Every sentence is informative; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema (in description), good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description fully informs the agent about behavior, usage, and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not add extra meaning beyond schema descriptions, but does not need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it's a lexical FTS5 search across atomic memories and that it returns compact candidate records, not full content. Distinct from siblings like get_memory_detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN, DO NOT USE, and CALL ORDER sections. Specifies when to use (summaries insufficient + concrete search phrase) and when not, and prescribes calling summary tools first then get_memory_detail for top results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns {project_id, memory_id} and provides fact type guidance. No contradictions, but could mention idempotency (idempotentHint=false).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, types, return. Front-loaded, no fluff, well-structured with section headings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return. Minor gap: no mention of overwrite or duplicate behavior, but annotations and schema handle most.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context for fact_type enum and its preferred usage, improving parameter understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'persist' and resource 'atomic memory', and distinguishes from sibling tools like remember_decision and upsert summaries by specifying concrete, reusable info types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections provide clear context and name alternatives (remember_decision for decisions, upsert summaries for summaries).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states idempotency ('Idempotently'), the create-or-replace nature, and the return value shape ({ project_id, summary_id }). No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage conditions, and return value. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 7 parameters, annotations, and output schema (mentioned), the description covers usage guidelines and return value. However, it does not explain how the parameters (e.g., project_id vs git_root) interact to identify the project, which is a minor gap for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the return value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Idempotently create or replace the structured project summary node', specifying the verb (create/replace) and resource (project summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember_fact and remember_decision by indicating granularity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions, stating that it is for major changes (architecture, conventions) and not for single facts/decisions, with direct references to alternative tools (remember_fact, remember_decision).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false. The description adds 'idempotently create or replace,' aligns with idempotence, and discloses return format ({ project_id, summary_id }). It explains the summary structure (progress, blockers, next steps), adding behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two lines for main description, then USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, and RETURNS. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers what, when, and what-not well. Output schema is described via return format. Sibling context is clear. Minor gap: no explanation of which parameter uniquely identifies the summary for update, but overall it's quite complete for an upsert tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema; however, it does not clarify how the tool identifies the task to update (e.g., whether title or project_id serves as key). Baseline 3 is appropriate given thorough schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Idempotently create or replace the current task summary (progress, blockers, next steps).' This specifies the operation (upsert), the resource (task summary), and its content. It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_summary (read) and upsert_project_summary (project-level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions are provided: 'meaningful progress was made, a blocker appeared, or the plan changed' and 'the update fits better as a single fact or decision.' This directly guides the agent on appropriate contexts and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output structure ('{ found, summary? }' with fields) and clarifying the durable user-level nature of the preferences, but does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences for purpose, two for usage, one for returns. Front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema described in the text (structure of return object), the description is fully sufficient. Annotations cover safety and idempotency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info beyond the schema, which is appropriate per the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a 'cross-project global memory summary' and lists its contents ('coding style, recurring preferences, stable workflow conventions'). It is distinct from siblings like 'get_project_summary' and 'get_task_summary' by specifying the global scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' rules provide clear context for when to invoke this tool, including exclusions for project-specific, syntactic, or self-contained questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context about project identification method (one of four parameters) and return structure, including that summary contains id, title, summary, updated_at. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, CALL ORDER, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and presence of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter guidance, and return structure. No obvious gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds crucial information: parameter selection logic (can pass workspace_path OR git_root OR remote_url OR project_id) and explains when to use project_id (explicit vs auto-resolution). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'project summary', listing content (architecture, key decisions, conventions). It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_summary and get_global_summary by specifying project-level context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly includes 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections with concrete conditions. Provides 'CALL ORDER' recommending preference over search_memory_light, giving clear guidance for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds behavioral context: the return structure ({ found, memory? } with full detail) and the call limit. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences: purpose, USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, LIMIT, RETURNS. Front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter, and return value. With rich annotations and output schema, the description fills all remaining gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds context: the id comes from search_memory_light and gives an example format 'mem_<hex>'. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Memory node id' description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Load the full body of a specific memory by id.' It uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('memory detail'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_memory_light (candidates) and summary tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'USE WHEN: a search_memory_light candidate looks relevant...' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN: you have not identified a specific memory id...' plus a limit of 3 calls per turn. This provides clear when/when-not guidance with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![memory-mcp-lite MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/thuupx/memory-mcp-lite/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/thuupx/memory-mcp-lite)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![memory-mcp-lite MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/thuupx/memory-mcp-lite/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/thuupx/memory-mcp-lite)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/thuupx/memory-mcp-lite'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server