EchoVault Memory
OCI · GHCR.IO/GO-PORTS/ECHOVAULT:0.3.3
Local-first memory for coding agents; stores decisions, bugs, and context across sessions.
Available components
Last scanned (15 hours ago)
Scores higher than 89% of OCI servers
Category Memory and Knowledge
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 198 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability64
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1002 tokens (~200/item across 5 items; 5 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- All 1 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (12)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (4)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 3 Nov 26 −1
- Stability: pass → 0.93 functional
- 28 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/go-ports/echovault:0.3.3
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
memory_context ~83
Get memory context for the current project. You MUST call this at session start to load prior decisions, bugs, and context. Do not skip this step — prior sessions contain decisions and context that directly affect your current task. Use memory_search for specific topics.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | Max memories (default 10) |
| project | string | yes | Project name (required). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
memory_delete ~229
Delete one or more memories to keep your memory store lean and accurate. Use this tool in two ways: 1. Targeted deletion (ids): remove specific memories whose content you have determined is outdated, incorrect, or no longer relevant. Workflow — call memory_context or memory_search to review existing memories, reason about which ones are stale (e.g. a decision was reversed, a bug fix no longer applies, a pattern was removed from the codebase), then pass their IDs here. 2. Bulk deletion by age (older_than_days): remove all memories older than N days, optionally scoped to a project or category. Use this for periodic housekeeping. At least one of `ids` or `older_than_days` must be provided.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | Scope bulk deletion to this category (only with older_than_days). |
| ids | array | – | IDs (or prefixes) of memories to delete. |
| older_than_days | number | – | Delete all memories older than this many days. |
| project | string | – | Scope bulk deletion to this project (only with older_than_days). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
memory_replace ~259
Fully replace the content of an existing memory with new, correct information. Prefer this over memory_save when the existing memory contains wrong or outdated information that must be overwritten rather than appended to. memory_save deduplicates and merges; memory_replace discards the old content entirely. Workflow: use memory_search or memory_context to find the memory ID, then call memory_replace with the corrected content. All fields except `id` behave the same as in memory_save.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | decision: chose X over Y. bug: fixed a problem. pattern: reusable gotcha. learning: non-obvious discovery. context: project setup/architecture. |
| details | string | – | Full context for a future agent with zero context. |
| id | string | yes | ID (or prefix) of the memory to replace. |
| impact | string | – | What changed as a result. |
| project | string | – | Project name. |
| related_files | array | – | File paths involved. |
| tags | array | – | Relevant tags. |
| title | string | yes | Short title, max 60 chars. |
| what | string | yes | 1-2 sentences. The essence a future agent needs. |
| why | string | – | Reasoning behind the decision or fix. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
memory_save ~349
Save a memory for future sessions. You MUST call this before ending any session where you made changes, fixed bugs, made decisions, or learned something. This is not optional — failing to save means the next session starts from zero. Save when you: - Made an architectural or design decision (chose X over Y) - Fixed a bug (include root cause and solution) - Discovered a non-obvious pattern or gotcha - Learned something about the codebase not obvious from code - Set up infrastructure, tooling, or configuration - The user corrected you or clarified a requirement Do NOT save: trivial changes (typos, formatting), info obvious from reading the code, or duplicates of existing memories. Write for a future agent with zero context. When filling `details`, prefer this structure: - Context - Options considered - Decision - Tradeoffs - Follow-up
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | decision: chose X over Y. bug: fixed a problem. pattern: reusable gotcha. learning: non-obvious discovery. context: project setup/architecture. |
| details | string | – | Full context for a future agent with zero context. Prefer: Context, Options considered, Decision, Tradeoffs, Follow-up. |
| impact | string | – | What changed as a result. |
| project | string | yes | Project name (required). |
| related_files | array | – | File paths involved. |
| tags | array | – | Relevant tags. |
| title | string | yes | Short title, max 60 chars. |
| what | string | yes | 1-2 sentences. The essence a future agent needs. |
| why | string | – | Reasoning behind the decision or fix. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
memory_search ~82
Search memories using keyword and semantic search. Returns matching memories ranked by relevance. You MUST call this at session start before doing any work, and whenever the user's request relates to a topic that may have prior context.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | Max results (default 5) |
| project | string | – | Filter to project. |
| query | string | yes | Search terms |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the EchoVault Memory MCP server?
EchoVault Memory runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i -e MEMORY_HOME ghcr.io/go-ports/echovault:0.3.3. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/go-ports/echovault:0.3.3
claude mcp add go-ports-echovault -- docker run --rm -i -e MEMORY_HOME ghcr.io/go-ports/echovault:0.3.3
This image reads MEMORY_HOME. Set it in your client's env block for this server; docker run -e passes it through to the container.
What is the EchoVault Memory MCP server?
EchoVault Memory is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.go-ports/echovault. Local-first memory for coding agents; stores decisions, bugs, and context across sessions. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/go-ports/echovault:0.3.3).
Is the EchoVault Memory MCP server safe to use?
EchoVault Memory scores 53 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the EchoVault Memory MCP server expose?
EchoVault Memory exposes 5 tools: memory_context, memory_delete, memory_replace, memory_save, memory_search. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,002 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the EchoVault Memory MCP server still maintained?
EchoVault Memory is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the EchoVault Memory MCP server under?
EchoVault Memory declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the EchoVault Memory MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on EchoVault Memory, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 8 more. 4 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about EchoVault Memory: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts and Dependency health. One category scores 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to a container image, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.