Skip to main content
Glama

Cada IA que usas recuerda una versión diferente de ti. Lo que una aprende desaparece cuando abres la siguiente, así que repites las mismas decisiones, relaciones, preferencias e historia al comienzo de otra sesión.

afair les da una bóveda compartida. Se conecta a través del Model Context Protocol (MCP), de modo que la misma memoria está disponible en Claude, tu agente de codificación y lo que sea que uses a continuación.

Una memoria en crecimiento normalmente se convierte en otra cosa que mantener. afair elimina ese trabajo. Los agentes en segundo plano leen lo que tus herramientas registran, descubren qué va junto, mantienen actualizada la comprensión útil y dejan que el ruido antiguo se desvanezca de la atención. La estructura sigue tu vida en lugar de una plantilla fija. No la archivas, etiquetas ni seleccionas.

El resultado sigue siendo visible. Puedes leer lo que afair cree, rastrearlo hasta la fuente y corregirlo cuando no te entienda bien. Las correcciones pasan a formar parte del historial en lugar de reemplazarlo silenciosamente.

Lo que entra es tu vida entera: tu trabajo, las personas que amas y las cosas personales que preferirías que una IA simplemente supiera.

Los datos son de solo añadidura y tuyos. afair es de código abierto y de un solo inquilino, y puedes exportarlo todo cuando quieras. El nombre es una abreviatura de «as far as I remember», la muletilla que está diseñado para hacer innecesaria.

Dos formas de usarlo

Ejecútalo tú mismo. Este repositorio es todo, AGPLv3. Alójalo en tu propia máquina o servidor y serás dueño de cada capa de principio a fin. Es gratis, para siempre. La guía de inicio rápido está abajo.

O deja que afair.ai lo ejecute por ti. El alojamiento gestionado, con tu propia instancia aislada en la UE, copias de seguridad, exportación y actualizaciones gestionadas por nosotros, estará disponible pronto. Únete a la lista de acceso anticipado en afair.ai.

El mismo código en ambos casos. El producto alojado es un despliegue de este repositorio, no un fork propietario separado.

Related MCP server: Hippocampus

Los tres comandos

afair expone exactamente tres herramientas, y están congeladas para siempre:

  • remember guarda algo duradero: una decisión, una persona importante, una fecha que no puedes perderte, una preferencia.

  • recall recupera lo que es relevante para el momento.

  • observe registra lo que acaba de hacer la IA, para que la bóveda se mantenga al día.

Una vez que le des a tu IA el breve fragmento de configuración, ella los llama por su cuenta. Nada llega a la bóveda a menos que una llamada lo ponga allí.

Ejecútalo tú mismo

Requiere Python 3.12+ y 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 afair

El servidor se levanta en http://127.0.0.1:8765. Apunta un cliente CLI o de escritorio (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot) hacia él, conéctalo y listo. Los clientes web que se ejecutan en la nube (Claude.ai, ChatGPT) necesitan en cambio un despliegue HTTPS público y una configuración rápida de OAuth, cubiertos en docs/self-hosting.md. Cada variable de entorno está documentada en línea en .env.example; las guías de conexión por cliente se encuentran en docs/clients. afair es personal por defecto; una bóveda puede en cambio pertenecer a una sola organización (una instancia, un equipo) mediante dos variables de entorno (ver docs/self-hosting.md).

Instálalo con tu agente de codificación

¿Ya estás en Claude Code, Codex u otro agente de codificación? Dale el prompt siguiente y él mismo se configura: clonar, dependencias, configuración y el cableado de MCP, y luego demuestra el viaje de ida y vuelta.

Configura afair (el servidor de memoria MCP de código abierto en https://github.com/afairai/afair) en esta máquina y conecta esta herramienta a él. Clónalo, ejecuta uv sync, copia .env.example a .env, y pídeme una clave API de proveedor de LLM para ponerla allí. Luego ejecuta uv run python scripts/install_clients.py para conectar mis clientes MCP y añadir el fragmento de instrucción de afair. Dime el comando para iniciar el servidor (uv run python -m afair) y cómo mantenerlo en funcionamiento. Una vez que esté arriba, recuerda un dato de prueba y recupéralo para demostrar que funciona. Sigue docs/self-hosting.md y docs/clients/; pon mi clave API solo en .env, en ningún otro sitio.

Eso se ejecuta localmente y sirve a clientes CLI y de escritorio de forma inmediata. Para llegar a los clientes web (Claude.ai, ChatGPT), sigue las notas de despliegue público en docs/self-hosting.md.

Enseña a tu IA a usarlo

Conectar el servidor es la mitad; la otra mitad es hacer que tu IA use las herramientas por sí sola. Pega el breve fragmento de instrucción en las instrucciones persistentes del cliente (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, instrucciones personalizadas o .cursorrules), y recordará el contexto al inicio de una conversación, guardará lo duradero y observará lo que hace, sin que tengas que pedírselo cada vez. El mismo fragmento funciona para todos los clientes. Para Claude Code, Codex y Cursor, scripts/install_clients.py escribe tanto la configuración de conexión como el fragmento por ti; para GitHub Copilot escribe la configuración de conexión e imprime el único fragmento por repositorio (Copilot lee las instrucciones por espacio de trabajo).

Compatible con

Claude Code, Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Codex CLI, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot y cualquier otra cosa que hable MCP sobre Streamable HTTP.

Arquitectura

Cuatro capas, una única fuente de verdad:

  • Sustrato. SQLite de solo añadidura con FTS5 y sqlite-vec, direccionado por contenido. El registro nunca se reescribe.

  • Interpretación. Vistas versionadas construidas sobre el sustrato. Regéneralas sin tocar ni un solo evento almacenado.

  • Superficie MCP. Versionada y aditiva. Una firma que se ha publicado sigue funcionando.

  • Agentes. Los trabajadores en segundo plano extraen evidencia, descubren qué va junto y mantienen síntesis vivas con citas. Los nombres y límites de los clústeres pueden cambiar a medida que cambia la evidencia. El usuario nunca define una categoría.

El diseño completo y los ocho invariantes que lo mantienen unido se encuentran en VISION.md. Empieza allí si quieres saber el porqué.

Documentación

Doc

Qué contiene

VISION.md

El diseño completo y los ocho invariantes. Empieza aquí para saber el porqué.

docs/self-hosting.md

Ejecuta tu propia bóveda: local, Docker o un despliegue público, con la configuración de cliente CLI vs. web y OAuth.

docs/clients

Guías de conexión por cliente (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot para VS Code + CLI, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Antigravity, Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Perplexity) y el único fragmento de instrucción universal.

CONTRIBUTING.md

Configuración de desarrollo, las cuatro comprobaciones y los invariantes que un cambio no puede romper.

SECURITY.md

Cómo informar de una vulnerabilidad y el modelo de seguridad que debe cumplir afair.

docs/adr

Registros de Decisiones de Arquitectura: por qué existen los invariantes, por qué el grafo de entidades es una capa de creencias.

CHANGELOG.md

Historial de versiones.

Contribuciones

Las pull requests son bienvenidas. Lee CONTRIBUTING.md para la configuración, las comprobaciones que deben pasar y los invariantes que un cambio no puede romper. ¿Has encontrado un problema de seguridad? Consulta SECURITY.md e infórmalo en privado.

Licencia

afair se publica bajo la GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (LICENSE). Puedes autoalojarlo, bifurcarlo y modificarlo libremente. Si ejecutas una versión modificada como servicio de red para otros, publicas tus cambios bajo la misma licencia. La oferta alojada en afair.ai es un despliegue de este código, no un fork propietario separado.

En una línea: gratis de usar, gratis de autoalojar, comparte si lo ejecutas como servicio para otros.

Hecho en Alemania

Construido en Alemania. Las instancias alojadas se ejecutan en la UE, bajo la jurisdicción de la UE.

Available Tools

3 tools
observeA

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 remember territory 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:..."}

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventYesAn 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

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
okYes
event_idYes
content_hashYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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_id or by_content_hash with full_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_cursor from 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 summary field 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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
by_idNo
depthNoauto
limitNo
queryNo
scopeNo
statsNo
cursorNo
decideNo
feedbackNo
verbosityNocompact
full_payloadNo
pending_limitNo
pending_offsetNo
by_content_hashNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
hitsYes
noteNo
summaryNo
coverageNo
decisionsNo
depth_usedYes
next_cursorNo
pending_countsNo
pending_correctionsNo
pending_corrections_countNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It 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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters5/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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 invalidates to 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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorNo
contentYes
contextNo
type_hintNo
asserted_byNo
invalidatesNo
parent_hashesNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
okYes
event_idYes
invalidatedNo
content_hashYes
deduplicatedYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters5/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

  1. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedobserve
    • First observedrecall
    • First observedremember

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Self-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).
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Open-source MCP memory server providing persistent, cross-platform context for AI tools via a knowledge graph with encrypted storage.
    4
    13
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Local-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.
    2
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

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