muninn-local-mcp

by wolfcao

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Tools are clearly separated by scope (global vs. project-specific) using consistent prefixes, and each tool performs a distinct operation (list, search, write, delete). No ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: scope prefix (global_memory_ or memory_) followed by a verb (list, search, write, delete). Naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools covering both global and project memory operations (list, search, write, delete), the count is well-scoped and appropriate for a focused memory store server.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is mostly complete for both scopes, but the global scope lacks a delete operation, which is a minor gap. CRUD operations are otherwise covered.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action, but does not mention irreversibility, confirmation steps, cascading effects, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal transparency for a destructive operation.
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: two sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second explaining the argument. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not mention the output schema (which exists) or any error conditions, leaving some context gaps.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds the nuance that memory_id can be a full or partial ID, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the format or how to obtain a memory ID. This partially compensates but lacks completeness.
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 action (delete), the resource (memory), and the scope (from the current project by its ID). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, search, or write memories, including global variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'current project' but does not contrast with global memory tools, and offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are missing, so description carries full burden. It mentions ordering and default limit, but lacks info on safety (read-only), return format (though output schema exists), and any pagination or auth requirements.
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: one sentence and a brief parameter note, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action.
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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers purpose and parameter, but lacks explicit guidance and safety context for a tool with no annotations.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the limit parameter's meaning and default. This adds value beyond the raw 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 tool lists globally stored memories with a specific ordering (newest first), distinguishing it from siblings like global_memory_search and memory_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as global_memory_search or memory_list. The description only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, size limits, or auth requirements. The description is functional but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear main purpose and bullet points for parameters. It is slightly verbose but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, return values are handled. The description covers param semantics and purpose well but lacks behavioral transparency, limiting completeness for a mutation tool.
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?
The description covers all three parameters: text (required, content), memory_type (allowed values with default), and tags (optional, comma-separated). However, there is a mismatch: schema lacks enum enforcement, but description lists values.
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 writes a memory entry to the global memory store, specifying it is cross-project. This differentiates it from per-project memory tools.
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?
It explains that global memories are shared across projects, implying when to use this vs memory_write. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral clues. It indicates that memories are 'persisted for future sessions,' implying durability. However, it lacks details on whether writes are append-only or overwriting, authorization requirements, size limits, or return values. This leaves room for ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, starting with the core purpose and then detailing parameters. The Args list improves readability. Every sentence is informative, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message, memory ID). It also lacks comparison to global_memory_write, which shares similar purpose but with broader scope. The description is adequate for basic use but misses context that would help the agent choose between siblings.
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?
The description fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing an explicit Args section that explains each parameter: 'text' required, 'memory_type' with valid options (summary, decision, next-steps, code-pattern, note, default), and 'tags' as comma-separated. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Write a memory entry to the current project's memory store.' It specifies the action (write), the resource (memory entry), and scope (current project). This distinguishes it from siblings like global_memory_write, though not explicitly. The examples of memory types further clarify the domain.
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 context for when to use the tool: 'Use this tool to save important context, decisions, code patterns, or next-steps that should be persisted for future sessions.' This guides the agent on appropriate usage, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives like global_memory_write.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses semantic similarity and result retrieval but lacks details on embedding model, pagination, max top_k limits, or handling of no results.
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 concise with an Args section, no extraneous content, and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence serves a 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 output schema exists, description needn't detail return format. It covers purpose and parameters adequately for a search tool, though could mention memory content scope.
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 0%, so description compensates. It explains 'query' as required search text and 'top_k' as max results with default 5, adding meaning beyond schema titles.
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 searches the global memory store using semantic similarity, specifying the verb (search), resource (global memory), and method (semantic similarity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like global_memory_write and memory_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for cross-project search but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like memory_search (project-specific). No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains ordering and pagination but does not mention safety (read-only implied), output format, or potential rate limits. Adequate but minimal for a read tool.
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?
Two concise sentences plus a two-line arg list. No wasted words, main purpose front-loaded. Perfectly sized for a simple list tool.
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?
For a simple list with two optional params and an output schema, the description covers core functionality: listing, ordering, pagination. Lacks mention of filter vs unfiltered listing but sufficient given tool simplicity.
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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining limit ('maximum number to return, default 20') and offset ('skip for pagination, default 0'). Adds clear meaning beyond schema types and defaults.
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 lists memories in the current project, ordered by creation time newest first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like global_memory_list (different scope) and memory_search (filtered search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies scope ('current project') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like global_memory_list or memory_search. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs semantic similarity search and returns relevant memories, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, auth needs, or edge cases. Adequate but not detailed.
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, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a brief implementation note, and an ordered list of parameters. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple search tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and method. It does not detail return values, but with output schema present, that is acceptable. Minor gap in behavioral transparency prevents a 5.
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?
The Args section in the description clearly explains both parameters: 'query' as required search text and 'top_k' as maximum results with a default of 5. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines types and default.
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 that the tool searches the current project's memory store using semantic similarity, distinguishing it from global memory search tools. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'current project's memory store'.
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 implies local scope ('current project') versus global siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like global_memory_search. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.
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:

[![muninn-local-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wolfcao/muninn-local-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wolfcao/muninn-local-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![muninn-local-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wolfcao/muninn-local-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wolfcao/muninn-local-mcp)

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/wolfcao/muninn-local-mcp'

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