afair
OfficialAllows GitHub Copilot to use a shared memory vault with remember, recall, and observe tools for persistent context across sessions.
Allows Perplexity to use a shared memory vault with remember, recall, and observe tools for persistent context across sessions.
Every AI you use remembers a different version of you. What one learns is gone when you open the next, so you repeat the same decisions, relationships, preferences, and history at the start of another session.
afair gives them one shared vault. It connects through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), so the same memory is available in Claude, your coding agent, and whatever you use next.
A growing memory usually becomes another thing to maintain. afair takes that work away. Background agents read what your tools record, discover what belongs together, keep the useful understanding current, and let old noise fade from attention. The structure follows your life instead of a fixed template. You do not file, tag, or curate it.
The result stays visible. You can read what afair believes, follow it back to the source, and correct it when it gets you wrong. Corrections become part of the history instead of silently replacing it.
What goes in is your whole life: your work, the people you love, and the personal things you'd rather an AI just knew.
The data is append-only and yours. afair is open source and single-tenant, and you can export all of it whenever you want. The name is short for "as far as I remember", the hedge it's built to make unnecessary.
Two ways to use it
Run it yourself. This repository is the whole thing, AGPLv3. Self-host it on your own machine or server and you own every layer end to end. It is free, forever. The quickstart is below.
Or let afair.ai run it for you. Managed hosting, with your own isolated EU instance, backups, export, and updates handled for you, is coming soon. Join the early-access list at afair.ai.
Same code either way. The hosted product is one deployment of this repo, not a separate proprietary fork.
Related MCP server: Hippocampus
The three commands
afair exposes exactly three tools, and they are frozen for good:
rememberstores something durable: a decision, a person who matters, a date you can't miss, a preference.recallpulls back what is relevant to the moment.observelogs what the AI just did, so the vault keeps up.
Once you hand your AI the short setup snippet, it calls these on its own. Nothing reaches the vault unless a call puts it there.
Run it yourself
Requires Python 3.12+ and uv.
uv sync
cp .env.example .env
# add ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, or a key for any other provider (the model is yours to pick)
uv run python -m afairThe server comes up on http://127.0.0.1:8765. Point a CLI or desktop client
(Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot) at it, connect, and you are done. Web clients that
run in the cloud (Claude.ai, ChatGPT) instead need a public HTTPS deployment and
a quick OAuth setup, covered in docs/self-hosting.md.
Every environment variable is documented inline in .env.example; per-client
connection guides live in docs/clients. afair is personal by
default; a vault can instead belong to a single organization (one instance, one
team) via two env vars (see docs/self-hosting.md).
Install it with your coding agent
Already in Claude Code, Codex, or another coding agent? Hand it the prompt below and it sets itself up: clone, dependencies, config, and the MCP wiring, then it proves the round-trip.
Set up afair (the open-source MCP memory server at https://github.com/afairai/afair) on this machine and connect this tool to it. Clone it, run
uv sync, copy.env.exampleto.env, and ask me for an LLM provider API key to put there. Then runuv run python scripts/install_clients.pyto wire my MCP clients and add the afair instruction snippet. Tell me the command to start the server (uv run python -m afair) and how to keep it running. Once it is up, remember a test fact and recall it to prove it works. Followdocs/self-hosting.mdanddocs/clients/; put my API key only in.env, nowhere else.
That runs locally and serves CLI and desktop clients out of the box. To reach web clients (Claude.ai, ChatGPT), follow the public-deployment notes in docs/self-hosting.md.
Teach your AI to use it
Connecting the server is half of it; the other half is making your AI reach for
the tools on its own. Paste the short instruction snippet
into the client's persistent instructions (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, Custom
Instructions, or .cursorrules), and it will recall context at the start of a
conversation, remember what's durable, and observe what it does, without you
prompting it each time. The same snippet works for every client. For Claude
Code, Codex, and Cursor, scripts/install_clients.py writes both the connection
config and the snippet for you; for GitHub Copilot it writes the connection
config and prints the one per-repo snippet step (Copilot reads instructions per
workspace).
Works with
Claude Code, Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Codex CLI, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, and anything else that speaks MCP over Streamable HTTP.
Architecture
Four layers, one source of truth:
Substrate. Append-only SQLite with FTS5 and sqlite-vec, content-addressed. The log is never rewritten.
Interpretation. Versioned views built over the substrate. Regenerate them without touching a single stored event.
MCP surface. Versioned and additive. A signature that has shipped keeps working.
Agents. Background workers extract evidence, discover what belongs together, and maintain cited living syntheses. Cluster names and boundaries can change as the evidence changes. The user never defines a category.
The complete design, and the eight invariants that hold it together, live in VISION.md. Start there if you want the why.
Documentation
Doc | What's in it |
The full design and the eight invariants. Start here for the why. | |
Run your own vault: local, Docker, or a public deployment, with the CLI-vs-web client and OAuth setup. | |
Per-client connection guides (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot for VS Code + CLI, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Antigravity, Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Perplexity) and the one universal instruction snippet. | |
Dev setup, the four checks, and the invariants a change cannot break. | |
How to report a vulnerability, and the security model to hold afair against. | |
Architecture Decision Records: why the invariants exist, why the entity graph is a belief layer. | |
Release history. |
Contributing
Pull requests are welcome. Read CONTRIBUTING.md for setup, the checks that must pass, and the invariants a change cannot break. Found a security issue? See SECURITY.md, and please report it privately.
License
afair is released under the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (LICENSE). You can self-host it, fork it, and modify it freely. If you run a modified version as a network service for others, you publish your changes under the same license. The hosted offering at afair.ai is one deployment of this code, not a separate proprietary fork.
In one line: free to use, free to host yourself, share back if you run it as a service for others.
Made in Germany
Built in Germany. The hosted instances run in the EU, under EU jurisdiction.
Available Tools
3 toolsobserveA
Log a structured event from your own agent activity to the user's vault.
This tool is for YOU (the AI agent) to record what YOU did. Different
from remember (which is for content the USER chose to save). observe
is your auto-journal so that future sessions of you, or other AI agents
the user works with, know what happened. The user wants visibility
into what their AI does, partly so they can audit, partly so the
next session has continuity.
Default to verbose observation. The user's salience worker and mode-switcher read observe events to decide attention state; richer observe data leads to better cognitive routing on subsequent recalls.
WHEN TO CALL:
After completing a substantive task: shipping code, sending an email, making a decision, finishing a meeting, running an analysis, editing a file.
When you start a significant work session ("started_task").
On any agent action whose existence the user might want to recall later ("what did Claude do yesterday in this project?").
On error or failure that's worth tracking for diagnosis.
WHEN NOT TO CALL:
For every micro-step, don't observe each individual file read.
For purely conversational acks.
For things the user explicitly typed (that's
rememberterritory if durable, nothing if not).
ARGUMENTS:
event: A JSON object. The only REQUIRED key is "action" (a non-empty string verb that names what kind of thing happened). Recognized optional keys: "subject": what was acted upon (filename, person, ticket, ...) "result": outcome ("success", "failed: X", free text) "actor": on WHOSE BEHALF this was logged, when a shared credential relays for many people (an org agent acting for a specific member). A free-form identifier kept verbatim ("slack:U123", "alice@corp"). Distinct from the server-derived
client(which tool wrote it): actor is attribution content you set, client is derived. Omit for a personal vault. Same content on behalf of different actors is stored as distinct events. Beyond those, ANY additional fields are preserved verbatim. Use whatever shape fits your agent's natural mental model. A JSON-string- serialized object is also accepted and parsed, and a bare string becomes the action — the event is never rejected on shape.Examples: {"action": "edit_file", "subject": "events.py", "result": "added inline-vs-spill logic"} {"action": "sent_email", "subject": "sajinth@example.com", "result": "follow-up on roadmap", "thread_id": "..."} {"action": "deployed", "subject": "afair-prod", "result": "v0.1.3", "duration_s": 47} {"action": "drafted_message", "subject": "Mara", "result": "birthday note for Saturday"}
RETURN: {"ok": true, "event_id": "...", "content_hash": "sha256:..."}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | Yes | An agent-self-logged event. ``action`` is required; other keys are recognized or preserved verbatim. Configured to allow arbitrary additional fields so different AI clients can use whatever shape fits their mental model. The extras are size- and nesting-bounded — see ``_bound_extras``. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| event_id | Yes | |
| content_hash | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the logging is for audit and continuity, mentions the salience worker reads events, and describes event shape tolerance (JSON, string). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, storage quotas, or if logging is synchronous—minor gaps for a logging tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by structured sections (WHEN TO/NOT, ARGUMENTS, RETURN). Every sentence adds nuance—no fluff. Examples and edge cases (bare string accepted) are included efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, required, nested), presence of output schema, and thorough description, this is fully complete. It explains return format, event shaping, and usage context. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'actor' field's attribution purpose versus client derivation, listing recognized optional keys with examples, and detailing how arbitrary fields are handled. This exceeds bare schema requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Log a structured event') and resource ('own agent activity to the user's vault'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall'. It explains this is for the AI agent's auto-journal, not user-saved content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'WHEN TO CALL' and 'WHEN NOT TO CALL' sections are provided, with concrete examples like after completing substantive tasks, and exclusions for micro-steps or conversational acks. It also contrasts with 'remember' for user-chosen content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recallA
Read the user's memory vault, afair, the persistent substrate they share across every session and every AI tool. CALL THIS BEFORE you respond to anything where the user's history might be relevant. Always.
The user installed afair so their context doesn't have to be repeated to every new conversation. A session where you have access to afair and don't call it is worse than a session without afair, because you're silently failing to use the memory they chose to maintain.
WHEN TO CALL:
At the START of every substantive task. Don't ask "do you want me to check?" Just check. Recall is cheap; missing context isn't.
Before answering questions that benefit from prior context: preferences, past decisions, names, ongoing projects, history with people (at work and outside it), important dates, recurring themes, deadlines, commitments.
When the user asks "do you remember X?", "what did we say about Y?", "remind me of Z?".
When the user wants the FULL content of a specific event ("show me the whole document"): use
by_idorby_content_hashwithfull_payload=True.When you want a snapshot of the vault's contents ("what's in there?"): use
stats=True.On topic shifts mid-conversation. New topic = fresh recall.
WHEN NOT TO CALL:
Pure compute questions ("what's 2+2", "translate this") that don't depend on the user's history.
When you just retrieved the same query a moment ago in this session.
Trivial conversational responses where no memory could help.
ARGUMENTS (all optional; combine as needed):
query: Natural-language search. Examples: "what did Sajinth say about the roadmap", "deadlines for the API project", "what does Mara like to drink", "when is my sister's birthday".
by_id: ULID of one specific event. Returns that event in full. Use after a prior recall hit when you need the whole content.
by_content_hash: sha256-prefixed hash of one specific event. Same lookup semantics as by_id.
scope: Optional substring filter. Reserved, currently no-op until Phase 3.5 emergent context detection lands.
depth: One of "auto" (default), "shallow", "normal", "deep". "auto" → system picks based on query shape (identifiers and single tokens → shallow; multi-token natural language → normal hybrid). Recommended default. "shallow" → FTS5 keyword only. Cheapest. "normal" → Hybrid FTS5 + vector. Local embedding inference, ~120ms. "deep" → Hybrid like normal, but the flat history lens: temporal relevance decay is OFF, so past-dated and superseded memories rank by match strength alone. Use for history / as-of questions ("what did I know back then", "show me past appointments"). Default recall instead de-prioritizes memories whose moment has passed, without dropping them.
limit: Max hits to return. Omitted → 10 in compact verbosity, 20 otherwise. Server cap 100 (larger values are clamped, not rejected).
verbosity: "compact" (default), "standard", or "full". Controls how much of each hit's interpretation/conflicts/linked-list detail is served — NOT the payload (see full_payload). "compact" → the AI-useful minimum: capped summary + payload text, top canonical entities and edges, only the top caveat-bearing conflicts. Use this by default. "standard"→ the full interpretation minus the redundant raw entity list and null edge validity bounds. "full" → every field, plus the durability rationale (interpretation.salience / salience_components / why_durable: a short "why this memory ranks as durable" line). Use standard/full, or by_id + full_payload, when you need salient_facts / raw entities / the complete conflict history. by_id/by_content_hash always serve full.
cursor: Opaque paging token for search/browse. Pass the
next_cursorfrom a prior recall back here verbatim to get the next page. Best-effort: rankings are recomputed per call. A bad cursor serves page 1 with a note.full_payload: Default false. When true, each hit's payload is the full untruncated content (for text-large events, the blob is read back into text). When false, text payloads are clipped (~500 chars standard/full, ~300 compact). Lookup modes (by_id, by_content_hash) imply full_payload=true.
stats: Default false. When true, the response includes a
summaryfield with total_events, by_kind, by_origin counts, useful for "what's the lay of the land" queries. Combines with any other mode.feedback: Optional dict reporting on hits from a PRIOR recall. Shape: {"useful_event_ids": [event_id, ...], "not_useful_event_ids": [event_id, ...], "missing_topic": "free-text note if expected content was absent"} This is the signal the self-improvement tuner reads to validate parameter changes (sharper salience, smarter mode-switching, better surprise calibration). After a recall, the NEXT time you call recall, include feedback referring to the prior hits. Don't ask whether to. Just send it. Empty payload is a no-op.
decide: Confirm/reject pending review proposals. Accepts a SINGLE decision or a LIST of up to 50 (batch-drain the queue in one call). Each: {"proposal_id": "...", "verdict": "confirm"|"reject"|"retract", "to_kind": "..."}. The per-decision outcomes come back in
decisions(see RETURN). A bad decision in a batch is reported as that item's outcome (status "error"); the rest still apply.pending_limit / pending_offset: Page the review queue. pending_limit (default 20, server cap 200) sets the page size; pending_offset skips that many rows. Passing pending_limit alone includes the list even without stats=True. While DRAINING the queue, decide a page then re-fetch at pending_offset=0 — deciding removes rows from the open set, so advancing the offset would skip the new head.
RETURN: {"hits": [{"event_id": "...", "content_hash": "...", "created_at": "...", "kind": "...", "origin": "...", "payload": {...}, "truncated": bool, "interpretation": {...} | null, "linked_event_ids": [...], "parent_hashes": [...], "invalidation": {...} | null, "conflicts": [...], "client": null | "..."}], "depth_used": "shallow" | "normal" | "deep", "note": null | "...", "summary": null | {total_events, by_kind, by_origin, by_client}, "decisions": [{"proposal_id": "...", "status": "...", "note": "..."}, ...], "next_cursor": null | "..."}
client on a hit is the AI tool that wrote the event, derived
server-side from the writing credential (not something the caller set).
It is null for events written before provenance existed, and is served at
verbosity "standard"/"full" and on by_id/by_content_hash lookups. The
summary.by_client map (on stats=True) counts events per writing client
— a different axis from by_origin, useful for "which tools have touched
this vault".
decisions is populated only when this call carried decide= — one
outcome per decision sent, in order (empty otherwise). next_cursor is
non-null when a next page is reachable; pass it back verbatim as cursor.
It is null once the pageable window is exhausted OR capped (the server bounds
how deep paging can go — at that edge a note says the window was capped, so
a client paging "until next_cursor is None" always terminates).
Each hit's payload is either the truncated summary or the full content,
depending on the full_payload flag (and lookup mode). truncated tells
you which form you got.
If hits is empty for a query, the user genuinely has no relevant memory yet. Consider asking them for context rather than guessing.
If invalidation is non-null on a hit, the fact was marked superseded
by a later event. For current-state questions, prefer hits where
invalidation is null. For historical questions, treat all hits as
relevant context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by_id | No | ||
| depth | No | auto | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| stats | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| decide | No | ||
| feedback | No | ||
| verbosity | No | compact | |
| full_payload | No | ||
| pending_limit | No | ||
| pending_offset | No | ||
| by_content_hash | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hits | Yes | |
| note | No | |
| summary | No | |
| coverage | No | |
| decisions | No | |
| depth_used | Yes | |
| next_cursor | No | |
| pending_counts | No | |
| pending_corrections | No | |
| pending_corrections_count | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: read-only nature ('read the user's memory vault'), cheapness ('Recall is cheap'), no side effects from reading, the effect of feedback (drives self-improvement tuner), the mutation via decide (explained as additive optional arg permitted under I1). Return format, field meanings, and edge cases (empty hits, invalidation, cursor cap) are all covered. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when-to, arguments, return). It front-loads the essential purpose and usage mandate. However, some argument documentation is verbose, e.g., the repeated why-optional rationale for decide and feedback could be consolidated. Still, the complexity justifies the length, and the structure aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (14 optional parameters, rich return fields, multiple usage patterns), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, all return fields with meanings, edge cases (empty hits, invalidation, cursor cap, truncation), and even explains the client field and summary. The output schema is effectively documented inline. No gaps are apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 14 parameters. It does so extensively: provides natural-language examples for query, explains depth modes with timing and behavior, clarifies limit clamping, verbosity per-level, cursor paging mechanics, full_payload and stats behavior, feedback schema with purpose, decide with verdict options and batch handling, and pending pagination. This adds rich semantic meaning far beyond the bare schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Read the user's memory vault, afair, the persistent substrate they share across every session and every AI tool.' It explicitly identifies the tool as a read operation on the shared memory vault, distinguishing it from sibling tools 'remember' (likely write) and 'observe' (likely watch). This provides unambiguous purpose and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a detailed 'WHEN TO CALL' and 'WHEN NOT TO CALL' section, with explicit scenarios (starting substantive tasks, before context-dependent questions, on topic shifts) and exclusions (pure compute, trivial responses, recent same query). It also suggests alternatives like by_id for full events and stats for snapshots. This is exemplary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rememberA
Save something to the user's persistent memory vault, afair, the substrate that travels across their sessions, AI tools, and years. Use it generously.
The user explicitly installed afair so their context doesn't reset. If a fact crosses your attention and looks even slightly worth more than the current message, save it. The cost of forgetting is the user re-explaining themselves next session; the cost of an extra remember is one append-only row that dedupes if identical.
WHEN TO CALL:
The user explicitly says "remember", "save", "note that", "keep this", "don't forget", "make a note", "add to memory", or any clear save-this signal.
The user shares a durable fact worth retaining across sessions, from any part of life: a work decision or deadline, a colleague's role, a friend's or family member's name and what matters to them, a birthday or anniversary, a preference (food, travel, how they like to work), a personal goal, something they are working through.
The user shows you content (an email, a meeting note, a document, a screenshot, a photo, a PDF, an audio clip) whose substance has reason to outlive this conversation.
You make a significant decision together with the user that should survive into future sessions.
The user corrects an earlier fact ("actually Sajinth is at Athara, not elvah"). Write the new fact AND pass the old event's content_hash in
invalidatesto mark it superseded.
DEFAULT: when in doubt, remember. Don't ask for permission. Don't narrate "I'll remember this for you." Just call it.
WHEN NOT TO CALL:
Conversational filler ("ok thanks", "got it", "sounds good").
Content the user is actively dictating to another destination.
Things you can easily re-derive from current code or state.
Personal details about other people that the user has not asked you to track.
ARGUMENTS:
content: A discriminated union. Either: {"type": "text", "text": "..."} for any text, OR {"type": "binary", "data_b64": "...", "mime": "image/png", "filename_hint": "screenshot.png"} for binary. Max 10 MB raw bytes. A JSON-string-serialized object (the same shape sent as a string) is also accepted and parsed, and a bare string is stored as text — the write is never rejected on shape.
context: Optional. Where this came from or what it relates to. Examples: "email thread with Sajinth", "Tuesday standup", "dinner with Mara", "Mum's birthday weekend". Aids future recall.
type_hint: Optional. What kind of thing this is, if you have a guess. Examples: "email", "meeting_minutes", "decision", "screenshot". Advisory only. The system may classify differently.
parent_hashes: Optional. Content hashes of events this one references (corrections, replies, threads).
invalidates: Optional. List of content_hashes that this new fact supersedes. Each target gets its own append-only invalidation event referencing it. Use when the user corrects a prior fact or a meeting outcome supersedes an earlier plan.
asserted_by: Optional. Who asserted this, one of "user" (the human stated it directly) or "model" (you inferred or synthesized it). Advisory provenance only: it is stored and served, but a self-reported "user" can NEVER raise the trust of a derived fact above the normal agent-derived level — operator-grade trust is earned only through the recall(decide=...) review loop. Omit if you're unsure.
actor: Optional. On WHOSE BEHALF this memory is written, when a single credential relays for many people (an organization's shared agent writing for different members). A free-form identifier kept verbatim — "slack:U0BKXTGBWLD", "alice@corp", "Alice from Sales". Omit for a personal vault or when the credential already identifies the writer.
DISAMBIGUATION — three different questions, don't conflate them: - client (served on recall hits): WHICH TOOL wrote this, derived server-side from the credential. You never set it. - actor (this argument): ON WHOSE BEHALF, when the credential is shared. You set it. Advisory only; it never substitutes for client and never raises trust. If absent, client is the best attribution. - asserted_by: whether a HUMAN or the MODEL asserted the fact. Same content written on behalf of different actors is stored as distinct events (attribution is content); identical content + same actor dedupes.
RETURN: {"ok": true, "event_id": "...", "content_hash": "sha256:...", "deduplicated": false, "invalidated": ["sha256:...", ...]}
deduplicated=true means an event with identical content+context already existed; nothing was added but the existing event_id is returned.
invalidated lists the content_hashes that were marked superseded in this call.
The substrate is the user's vault, not yours. Be a thoughtful librarian: save signal worth keeping; don't hoard ephemera.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| type_hint | No | ||
| asserted_by | No | ||
| invalidates | No | ||
| parent_hashes | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| event_id | Yes | |
| invalidated | No | |
| content_hash | Yes | |
| deduplicated | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It explains beyond what annotations might cover: deduplication behavior (identical content+actor), return schema details (event_id, content_hash, deduplicated flag, invalidated list), size limits (10 MB for inline, up to 1 GB via blob-ref), compound event atomicity, and the 'asserted_by' trust model. No contradictions exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is comprehensive and well-organized with clear sections (WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, ARGUMENTS, RETURN, etc.). It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and bias. However, it is verbose in some parts (e.g., the full code examples in parameter descriptions and the disambiguation section) and could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains every parameter in detail, covers the complex content union with 4 variants, clarifies compound event atomicity vs. parent_hashes, and documents the return schema. The output schema exists and the description doesn't repeat it but rather adds behavioral context. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides rich, detailed meaning for all 7 parameters. For content, it enumerates 4 discriminated union variants (text, binary, blob-ref, compound) with behavioral intent. It gives concrete examples for context, type_hint, parent_hashes, invalidates, and actor, and includes a detailed disambiguation block for client vs. actor vs. asserted_by. This far exceeds baseline requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs like 'save' and 'remember', clearly identifies the resource as the user's persistent memory vault (afair), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with recall (for retrieval) and observe (implied passive). It thoroughly explains the tool's role as a durable, cross-session storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit WHEN TO CALL examples (user says 'remember', shares durable facts, shows content, makes decisions, corrects facts with invalidates) and WHEN NOT TO CALL categories (conversational filler, content destined elsewhere, re-derivable facts, unrequested personal details). Also includes a clear DEFAULT bias toward remembering without asking permission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
observe - First observed
recall - First observed
remember
TDQS
Each tool has a completely distinct and clear purpose: remember saves user facts, recall retrieves them, and observe logs agent actions. There is no possible confusion between the tools.
All three tool names are imperative verbs (remember, recall, observe) that directly describe their action, forming a consistent and predictable pattern. No naming convention conflicts.
Three tools is exactly right for a memory vault server: one to write user memories, one to read them, and one to log agent activity. Each tool earns its place without any redundancy or scope creep.
The tool set covers the full memory lifecycle: creation (remember), retrieval/search (recall), and agent activity logging (observe). There are no obvious gaps—the domain is self-contained and complete for a vault that persists across sessions.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Persistent, portable memory for AI assistants — your private memory graph, from any MCP client.
One memory, every AI. A shared, user-owned markdown memory your AI clients read and write over MCP.
- memnodeOAuthdev.memnode
Persistent, inspectable memory for AI agents with lineage, correction, and a hosted MCP endpoint.
Your versioned memory across every AI tool — context maps, personal memory, and tasks over MCP.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceSelf-hosted semantic memory for AI agents. Save worklogs, decisions, and notes via MCP, then recall them across sessions by meaning rather than keyword. Backed by Postgres + pgvector with local embeddings (multilingual-e5-base).1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceOpen-source MCP memory server providing persistent, cross-platform context for AI tools via a knowledge graph with encrypted storage.413AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first, file-based memory layer for AI agents — one shared Markdown vault across Claude, Codex, Gemini, Cursor and any MCP client. Provides read/write memory tools with an audit trail, per-agent trust levels, and Git sync; no cloud and no lock-in.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenancePrivacy-first local memory vault every AI shares over MCP. Markdown + SQLite on your machine; Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, and any MCP client read and write it live. No cloud, no account, no telemetry124MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/afairai/afair'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server