afair
Officialあなたが使うAIはそれぞれ、あなたの異なるバージョンを記憶しています。あるAIが学んだことは、次のAIを開くときには消えているため、別のセッションを始めるたびに同じ決断、人間関係、好み、経歴を繰り返すことになります。
afair はそれらに共有の保管庫を与えます。これは Model Context Protocol (MCP) を通じて接続するため、同じメモリを Claude、あなたのコーディングエージェント、そして次に使うどんなツールでも利用できます。
成長するメモリは通常、もう一つの管理対象になります。afair はその手間を省きます。バックグラウンドエージェントがあなたのツールが記録した内容を読み、関連するものを発見し、有用な理解を最新に保ち、古いノイズを注意の対象から遠ざけます。構造は固定テンプレートではなく、あなたの生活に従います。ファイルへの整理、タグ付け、キュレーションは不要です。
結果は可視化されたままです。afair がどのように認識しているかを読んだり、その情報をソースまでたどったり、誤っている場合は修正したりできます。修正は履歴の一部となり、静かに置き換わることはありません。
そこに収められるのは、あなたの生活のすべてです。仕事、愛する人々、そしてAIに自然に知ってほしい個人的な事柄も含まれます。
データは追記専用であり、あなたのものです。afair はオープンソースでシングルテナントであり、いつでもすべてをエクスポートできます。名前は「私が覚えている限り」の略であり、それが不要になるように設計されています。
2つの利用方法
自分で実行する。 このリポジトリが全体であり、AGPLv3です。自分のマシンやサーバーでセルフホストすれば、すべてのレイヤーをエンドツーエンドで所有できます。それは無料で、永遠にです。クイックスタートは以下にあります。
または afair.ai に実行を任せる。 専用の隔離されたEUインスタンス、バックアップ、エクスポート、アップデートを代行するマネージドホスティングが近日登場します。afair.ai で早期アクセスリストに登録してください。
どちらの場合も同じコードです。ホステッド製品はこのリポジトリのデプロイの一つであり、別のプロプライエタリなフォークではありません。
Related MCP server: Hippocampus
3つのコマンド
afair が公開するツールは正確に3つで、将来にわたって変更されません:
rememberは、決断、重要な人物、見逃せない日付、好みなど、永続的なものを保存します。recallは、その瞬間に関連する情報を引き出します。observeは、AIが行ったことを記録し、保管庫を最新に保ちます。
AIに短いセットアップスニペットを渡せば、AIは自動的にこれらを呼び出します。呼び出しによって入れられない限り、何も保管庫に到達しません。
自分で実行する
Python 3.12以上とuvが必要です。
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サーバーは http://127.0.0.1:8765 で起動します。CLIまたはデスクトップクライアント(Claude Code、Codex、Cursor、GitHub Copilot)をそこに向けて接続すれば完了です。クラウドで動作するWebクライアント(Claude.ai、ChatGPT)では、代わりに公開HTTPSデプロイと簡単なOAuth設定が必要です。詳しくは docs/self-hosting.md を参照してください。すべての環境変数は .env.example にインラインで文書化されています。クライアント別の接続ガイドは docs/clients にあります。afair はデフォルトで個人向けですが、2つの環境変数を使用することで、保管庫を単一の組織(1つのインスタンス、1つのチーム)に属させることもできます(docs/self-hosting.md を参照)。
コーディングエージェントでインストールする
Claude Code、Codex、または他のコーディングエージェントをすでに使っていますか? 以下のプロンプトを渡すと、エージェントが自動的にセットアップします:クローン、依存関係、設定、MCP配線、そしてラウンドトリップの検証まで行います。
このマシンに afair(オープンソースMCPメモリサーバー、 https://github.com/afairai/afair)をセットアップし、このツールを接続してください。 クローンし、
uv syncを実行し、.env.exampleを.envにコピーし、LLM プロバイダーのAPIキーをそこに置くよう私に尋ねてください。次に実行するのはuv run python scripts/install_clients.pyで、私のMCPクライアントを配線し、 afairの指示スニペットを追加します。サーバーを起動するコマンド (uv run python -m afair)と、それを実行し続ける方法を教えてください。起動したら、 テスト用の事実を remember し、それを recall して動作することを確認してください。docs/self-hosting.mdとdocs/clients/に従ってください。APIキーは.envにのみ置き、他の場所には置かないでください。
これはローカルで実行され、CLIおよびデスクトップクライアントをそのまま利用できます。Webクライアント(Claude.ai、ChatGPT)に到達するには、docs/self-hosting.md の公開デプロイに関する注意事項に従ってください。
AIに使い方を教える
サーバーへの接続は半分にすぎません。もう半分は、AIが自らツールを使うようにすることです。短い指示スニペットをクライアントの永続的な指示(CLAUDE.md、AGENTS.md、カスタム指示、または .cursorrules)に貼り付けると、会話の開始時にコンテキストを思い出し、永続的なものを記憶し、自分の行動を観察します。毎回プロンプトを出す必要はありません。同じスニペットがすべてのクライアントで機能します。Claude Code、Codex、Cursorの場合、scripts/install_clients.py が接続設定とスニペットの両方を書き込みます。GitHub Copilotの場合は、接続設定を書き込み、リポジトリごとのスニペット手順を表示します(Copilotはワークスペースごとに指示を読み取ります)。
対応クライアント
Claude Code、Claude.ai、ChatGPT、Codex CLI、Cursor、Windsurf、Copilot、および Streamable HTTP 上で MCP をサポートするその他すべてのツール。
アーキテクチャ
基盤. FTS5 と sqlite-vec を備えた追記専用 SQLite。コンテンツアドレス方式です。ログが書き換えられることはありません。
解釈. 基盤上に構築されたバージョン管理されたビュー。保存済みのイベントに触れることなく再生成できます。
MCP サーフェス. バージョン管理され、追加型です。一度リリースされた署名は動き続けます。
エージェント. バックグラウンドワーカーが証拠を抽出し、関連するものを発見し、引用付きの生きた総合情報を維持します。クラスタ名と境界は証拠の変化に応じて変わります。ユーザーがカテゴリを定義することはありません。
完全な設計と、それを支える8つの不変条件は VISION.md にあります。理由を知りたいなら、そこから始めてください。
ドキュメント
ドキュメント | 内容 |
完全な設計と8つの不変条件。その理由を知りたければここから始めてください。 | |
独自の保管庫を実行する方法:ローカル、Docker、または公開デプロイ。CLIとWebクライアントの比較、OAuth設定も含みます。 | |
クライアント別の接続ガイド(Claude Code、Codex、Cursor、VS Code + CLI向けGitHub Copilot、Gemini CLI、Windsurf、Antigravity、Claude.ai、ChatGPT、Perplexity)と、汎用の指示スニペット。 | |
開発環境のセットアップ、4つのチェック、変更が壊してはならない不変条件。 | |
脆弱性の報告方法と、afair に期待するセキュリティモデル。 | |
アーキテクチャ決定記録:不変条件が存在する理由、エンティティグラフが信念レイヤーである理由。 | |
リリース履歴。 |
コントリビューション
プルリクエストを歓迎します。セットアップ、通過すべきチェック、変更が壊してはならない不変条件については CONTRIBUTING.md を参照してください。セキュリティの問題を見つけましたか? SECURITY.md を参照し、非公開で報告してください。
ライセンス
afair は GNU Affero General Public License v3.0(LICENSE)の下で公開されています。セルフホスト、フォーク、変更は自由に行えます。変更したバージョンをネットワークサービスとして他人に提供する場合、その変更を同じライセンスの下で公開する必要があります。afair.ai のホステッドサービスは、このコードのひとつのデプロイであり、別のプロプライエタリなフォークではありません。
一言で言えば:無料で使え、自分でホストでき、他人へのサービスとして実行する場合は共有が求められます。
ドイツ製
ドイツで開発されています。ホステッドインスタンスはEU内で稼働し、EUの法域に属します。
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