Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to AI Memory MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to maintain a private, local-first persistent memory by automatically saving, searching, and retrieving structured project memories through MCP, with hybrid keyword and embedding search, feedback-driven ranking, and no cloud dependency.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP-native persistent memory layer for AI agents across Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code, and OpenClaw. Powered by hybrid vector search, BM25, and cross-encoder reranking with a published 73.1% LoCoMo benchmark accuracy.
      8
      4
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Local-first persistent memory for coding agents and MCP clients. It keeps important project context across sessions and reduces wasted tokens by retrieving only relevant memories instead of replaying unnecessary history.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to retrieve and manage code context with hybrid search, project memory, and observability via MCP tools.
      29
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A shared, persistent MCP memory server for coding agents that enables storing and retrieving project decisions and context across different tools like Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor using semantic vector search.
      8
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: forget (delete), get_memory (by id), list_memories (filtered browsing), recall (semantic search), remember (create), search_memories (structured filter), update_memory (modify), who_am_i (identity). Despite some overlap between list and search, descriptions differentiate them well.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Naming conventions are mixed: three tools are single verbs (forget, recall, remember), four are verb_noun (get_memory, list_memories, search_memories, update_memory), and one is a phrase (who_am_i). This inconsistency, while readable, lacks a uniform pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a memory server. Each tool serves a distinct CRUD or auxiliary role, covering creation, retrieval (multiple methods), update, deletion, and system info. No tool seems superfluous or missing.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: remember (create), get_memory/list/recall/search/who_am_i (read), update_memory (update), forget (delete). It also supports linking via recall. No obvious gaps for the intended personal memory domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues