Claims MCP vs Cognitive AI Memory

In-depth architectural comparison of the Claims MCP and Cognitive AI Memory MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

C

Choose Claims MCP when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Claims MCP Details

Choose Cognitive AI Memory when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Knowledge & Memory domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Cognitive AI Memory Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Claims MCP Knowledge & Memory	Cognitive AI Memory Knowledge & Memory
Summary	A claims memory for agents: assert beliefs, let them decay, surface contradictions.	Ebbinghaus-based persistent memory for Claude. Memories decay with time, strengthen on recall.
Category & Scope	Knowledge & Memory	Knowledge & Memory

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "claims-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "claims-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cognitive-ai-memory": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "yourmemory"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons