Skip to main content
Glama

你使用的每一款 AI 都会记住一个不同版本的你。一个 AI 学到的东西,在你打开下一个 AI 时就会消失,所以你不得不在另一次会话的开头重复同样的决定、关系、偏好和历史。

afair 为它们提供了一个共享的保险库。它通过 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 连接,因此同样的记忆在 Claude、你的编码代理以及你接下来使用的任何工具中都可使用。

不断增长的记忆通常会成为另一件需要维护的事情。afair 把这件工作接管了。后台代理会读取你的工具所记录的内容,发现哪些内容属于同一类,让有用的理解保持最新,并让旧的噪音从注意力中淡出。结构跟随你的生活,而不是固定的模板。你无需归档、打标签或整理它。

结果保持可见。你可以阅读 afair 相信的内容,追溯回源头,并在它弄错你的时候纠正它。纠正会成为历史的一部分,而不是被默默替换。

进入其中的是你生活的全部:你的工作、你爱的人,以及你宁愿让 AI 直接知道的私人事情。

数据是仅追加的,并且属于你。afair 是开源且单租户的,你可以随时导出全部数据。这个名字是“据我所记得的”的缩写,afair 正是为了让你不再需要这种模棱两可的说法而构建的。

两种使用方式

自己运行。 这个仓库就是全部,AGPLv3。在你自己的机器或服务器上自托管,你就端到端地拥有每一层。它是免费的,永远。快速开始见下文。

或者让 afair.ai 为你运行。 托管服务即将推出,包括你独立的欧盟实例、备份、导出和更新,都由我们帮你处理。在 afair.ai 加入早期访问名单。

无论哪种方式,代码都是一样的。托管产品是此仓库的一个部署,而不是独立的专有分支。

Related MCP server: Hippocampus

三个命令

afair 恰好暴露三个工具,并且它们已永久固定:

  • remember 存储一些持久的东西:一个决定、一个重要的人、一个不能错过的重要日期、一个偏好。

  • recall 拉回与当下相关的内容。

  • observe 记录 AI 刚刚做了什么,以便保险库保持同步。

一旦你把简短的设置片段交给你的 AI,它就会自行调用这些工具。除非有调用将其放入,否则任何内容都不会进入保险库。

自己运行

需要 Python 3.12+ 和 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

服务器在 http://127.0.0.1:8765 上启动。让 CLI 或桌面客户端(Claude Code、Codex、Cursor、GitHub Copilot)指向它,连接即可完成。而运行在云端的 Web 客户端(Claude.ai、ChatGPT)则需要公共 HTTPS 部署和快速的 OAuth 设置,详见 docs/self-hosting.md。每个环境变量都在 .env.example 中内联记录;各客户端的连接指南位于 docs/clients。afair 默认是个人使用;一个保险库也可以通过两个环境变量改属于单个组织(一个实例,一个团队)(参见 docs/self-hosting.md)。

用你的编码代理安装

已经在使用 Claude Code、Codex 或其他编码代理?把下面的提示交给它,它就会自行完成设置:克隆、依赖、配置和 MCP 接线,然后验证往返连通。

在这台机器上设置 afair(位于 https://github.com/afairai/afair 的开源 MCP 记忆服务器),并将此工具连接到它。克隆它,运行 uv sync,将 .env.example 复制为 .env,并向我索要一个 LLM 提供方 API 密钥放在里面。然后运行 uv run python scripts/install_clients.py 来连接我的 MCP 客户端并添加 afair 指令片段。告诉我启动服务器的命令(uv run python -m afair)以及如何保持它运行。一旦它启动完成,记住一个测试事实并回忆它来证明工作正常。遵循 docs/self-hosting.mddocs/clients/;只把我的 API 密钥放在 .env 中,不要放在其他地方。

上面的方式在本地运行,并开箱即用地服务 CLI 和桌面客户端。若要触达 Web 客户端(Claude.ai、ChatGPT),请遵循 docs/self-hosting.md 中的公共部署说明。

教你的 AI 使用它

连接服务器只是其中一半;另一半是让你的 AI 自行使用这些工具。将简短的指令片段粘贴到客户端的持久指令(CLAUDE.md、AGENTS.md、Custom Instructions 或 .cursorrules)中,它就会在对话开始时回忆上下文,记住持久的内容,并观察它所做的事情,而无需你每次都提示。同一个片段适用于所有客户端。对于 Claude Code、Codex 和 Cursor,scripts/install_clients.py 会为你写入连接配置和片段;对于 GitHub Copilot,它会写入连接配置并打印每个仓库的片段步骤(Copilot 按工作区读取指令)。

兼容

Claude Code、Claude.ai、ChatGPT、Codex CLI、Cursor、Windsurf、Copilot,以及任何其他通过 Streamable HTTP 使用 MCP 的工具。

架构

四层架构,一个事实来源:

  • 基底(Substrate)。 使用 FTS5 和 sqlite-vec 的仅追加 SQLite,内容寻址。日志永不重写。

  • 解释(Interpretation)。 在基底之上构建的版本化视图。无需触及任何已存事件即可重新生成。

  • MCP 表面(MCP surface)。 版本化且可累加。已发布的签名会一直有效。

  • 代理(Agents)。 后台工作进程提取证据,发现哪些内容属于同一类,并维护带有引用的活体综合。聚类名称和边界可随证据变化而变化。用户从不定义类别。

完整的设计,以及将这一切联系在一起的八个不变量,都在 VISION.md 中。如果你想知道为什么,请从这里开始。

文档

文档

内容

VISION.md

完整的设计和八个不变量。想知道为什么,从这里开始。

docs/self-hosting.md

运行你自己的保险库:本地、Docker 或公共部署,包括 CLI 与 Web 客户端的对比以及 OAuth 设置。

docs/clients

各客户端连接指南(Claude Code、Codex、Cursor、VS Code + CLI 的 GitHub Copilot、Gemini CLI、Windsurf、Antigravity、Claude.ai、ChatGPT、Perplexity),以及一份通用指令片段。

CONTRIBUTING.md

开发设置、四项检查,以及任何改动都不能破坏的不变量。

SECURITY.md

如何报告漏洞,以及 afair 应当满足的安全模型。

docs/adr

架构决策记录:为什么存在这些不变量,为什么实体图是一个信念层。

CHANGELOG.md

发布历史。

贡献

欢迎提交 pull request。请阅读 CONTRIBUTING.md 了解设置、必须通过的检查,以及任何改动都不能破坏的不变量。发现了安全问题?请参阅 SECURITY.md,并私下报告。

许可证

afair 根据 GNU Affero General Public License v3.0(LICENSE)发布。你可以自由地自托管、分叉和修改它。如果你将修改后的版本作为网络服务提供给他人,你必须在同一许可证下发布你的更改。位于 afair.ai 的托管产品是此代码的一个部署,而不是独立的专有分支。

一句话:自由使用,自由自托管,如果你把它作为服务提供给他人,请分享回来。

德国制造

在德国构建。托管实例在欧盟运行,受欧盟管辖。

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