Live Memory vs Melchizedek

In-depth architectural comparison of the Live Memory and Melchizedek 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?

L

Choose Live 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 Live Memory Details

Choose Melchizedek 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 Melchizedek Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	L Live Memory Knowledge & Memory	Melchizedek Knowledge & Memory
Summary	Persistent, read-only codebase memory for Claude Code; ask it instead of re-reading files.	Persistent memory for Claude Code — offline, single-file, hybrid search.
Category & Scope	Knowledge & Memory	Knowledge & Memory
Quality signal

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": {
    "live-memory": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "live-memory"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "melchizedek": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "melchizedek-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons