Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents with an external memory framework that want a local model for the write path on a 24 GB card
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 50
- Documentation and upkeep, 68 against 57
Watch for
Not a general assistant or a tool caller
Best for Agents that want a small local helper for tool calls, extraction and RAG on a laptop, phone or CPU, at organisations under the licence's revenue threshold
Ahead on
- Reach, 90 against 85
- Agent interface, 75 against 65
Watch for
Liquid lists it as deprecated, replaced by LFM3-1.7B; deprecated models stay downloadable but get no further updates
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Documentation and upkeep Hy-Memory-30B-A3B +11
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 68
Model card 8, Intended use (the write path of Mem0, MemOS and Hy-Memory), parameters (30B, about 3B active) and languages (English and Chinese, in the metadata) are there. Training data 5, A general description of the two training stages inside the harnesses, with no datasets, sizes or cut-off. Last change 20, the last commit, on 16 October 2026, added the licence and the card, 25 days before this check. Responsiveness 20, Of the 4 discussions that aren't pull requests (16 to 30 October 2026), 3 have a reply from a tencent organisation member. Version policy 5, A first release, with nothing replaced. File health 10, Config, tokenizer and template agree on the architecture, the context and the thinking levels. 8 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 68.
LFM2.5-2.6B 57
The model card earns 17, with everything but a knowledge cut-off. Training data earns 5 for a general description without a cut-off. The last change earns 20, a card commit on 3 November 2026 naming LFM3-1.7B as the new version. Responsiveness earns 5, with Liquid replies in 2 of 16 discussions. Version policy earns 5, as Liquid now lists the model as deprecated with a replacement but no date. File health earns 5, since the files agree but a report about the card waits without a reply.
Risk Hy-Memory-30B-A3B +10
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 60
File safety 25, 51 safetensors shards and no pickle or Python files. Provenance 15, files in the tencent organisation that the card's own resource list links to (10), with a SHA-256 listed for all 53 large files (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, no prompt-injection guidance, instruction hierarchy, account of trained refusals or general cautions on the card. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 with no use policy, no field-of-use limit, no threshold and no clause letting Tencent change the terms. Security programme 5, Tencent's Security Response Center takes vulnerability reports company-wide with published reward rules, as the Hy3 listing records (5). 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 5 = 60.
LFM2.5-2.6B 50
File safety earns 25, safetensors and GGUF only, and nothing from the repository runs to load it or build prompts. Provenance earns 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation Liquid links to, with a checksum for every file. Safety evaluation and agent guidance earn nothing, since Liquid publishes neither. Licence risk earns 10, losing 5 for the revenue threshold, with no use policy and no change since release. The security programme earns nothing, since no security.txt, disclosure policy or security contact was found.
Agent interface LFM2.5-2.6B +10
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 65
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, the card doesn't mention tools. Trained tool calling 10, the template can render tool calls, but the card presents the model as a memory writer that returns memories as text or JSON and says nothing of calling tools. Structured output 5, the card's quickstart asks for a JSON object with a memories list in the system prompt and shows nothing else, no response_format and no schema, so JSON output is shown by example without a documented way to constrain it. Reasoning control 10, the card passes reasoning_effort as no_think per request through chat_template_kwargs, and the template takes high, low or no_think. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native (max_position_embeddings in config.json). 20 + 10 + 10 + 5 + 10 + 10 = 65.
LFM2.5-2.6B 75
The chat template earns 20 for chat_template.jinja in the repository. The tool-calling format earns 25, as Liquid's card and tool-use page say how tools go in and how calls come back, and its vLLM and SGLang pages name the lfm2 parser. Trained tool calling earns 20, with several calls in one Python list and agentic RL inside agent harnesses. Structured output earns nothing, as JSON output isn't documented for the model. Reasoning control earns nothing, since the model always thinks. Context earns 10 for 131,072 tokens trained.
Reach LFM2.5-2.6B +5
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 85
Memory 25, Tencent's own Q4_K_M GGUF is 18.24 GB, and 18.24 GB × 1.2 = 21.9 GB, which fits 24 GB but not 16 GB. Its Q3_K_M file and the two files with experts at 1 or 2 bits are below 4-bit precision and don't count. Runtimes 20, hy_v3 model code in released vLLM (HYV3ForCausalLM in the v0.33.0 registry), SGLang v0.5.23 (hunyuan_v3.py), Transformers v5.22.2 and llama.cpp b12242, 5 each. Builds 15, Tencent publishes an FP8 repository and a GGUF repository with Q4_K_M, Q6_K and Q8_0 files in its own organisation, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0, with only a preamble naming Tencent as copyright holder above the licence text. Download 10, gated is false for the main, FP8 and GGUF repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account or terms to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face lists no inference provider for the model (an empty provider mapping on 10 November 2026), and the card names no API. 25 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 85.
LFM2.5-2.6B 90
Memory earns the full 30, since Liquid's own 4-bit GGUF is 1.59 GB and fits 8 GB with room to spare. Runtimes earn 25, with the lfm2 architecture in released llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers, and in Ollama through the llama.cpp version it pins. Builds earn 15 for Liquid's own GGUF, MLX and ONNX builds at many precisions. Terms earn 10, a custom licence that is free for commercial use under $10M of annual revenue. Download earns 10, with no gate. Hosted earns nothing, as Hugging Face maps no inference provider and Liquid's docs list no hosted API for it.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Hy-Memory-30B-A3B | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 85 | 90 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 60 | 50 | Hy-Memory-30B-A3B +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 65 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 68 | 57 | Hy-Memory-30B-A3B +11 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | D 50.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Hy-Memory-30B-A3B | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Tencent (Hy team) | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-16 | 2026-11-03 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.5/5 (4) |
How the scores have moved
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
A specialist that writes an agent's long-term memory, built to slot into Mem0, MemOS or Tencent's own framework in place of a general model. It fits a 24 GB card from Tencent's own GGUF, under plain Apache 2.0, and Tencent answers on the repository. Its results are Tencent's own and nobody has rerun them.
LFM2.5-2.6B
A small, fast model for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone, which Liquid now lists as deprecated in favour of LFM3-1.7B. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB and five common runtimes run it. It always thinks, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
Before you call either
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Use it as the writer model in Mem0, MemOS or Hy-Memory, not as the model that answers the user
- Start it with
llama-server -hf tencent/Hy-Memory-30B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, or with vLLM under the served name hy-memory as the card does - Pass
reasoning_effortas no_think inchat_template_kwargsand temperature 0, as the card's example does - Ask for a JSON object in the system prompt and validate it yourself, since no schema constraint is documented
- Treat what it stores as unverified. It keeps what a conversation says, true or not
LFM2.5-2.6B
- Quickest start is
ollama run LiquidAI/lfm2.5-2.6b, 1.7 GB, orllama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B-GGUF - With vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser lfm2; for vLLM add--reasoning-parser qwen3so the thinking comes back separately - Sample at temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition_penalty 1.1, as the card and generation_config.json set
- Put tools in the system prompt as
List of tools: [...]JSON, or pass tools to apply_chat_template; calls come back as a Python list of function calls, and the system prompt can ask for JSON calls instead - Leave max_tokens unset or generous, since a low cap cuts the reasoning off mid-thought
- Earlier thinking is dropped from the prompt unless
preserve_thinkingis true - Liquid's 328M LFM2.5-2.6B-DSpark drafter speeds decoding about 2.6 times in SGLang and on Apple silicon, per Liquid
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Hy-Memory-30B-A3B or LFM2.5-2.6B?
Hy-Memory-30B-A3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface.
Other comparisons with Hy-Memory-30B-A3B or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Arete-27B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Arete-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Hy3
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Inkling
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Inkling-Small
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Kimi K3
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Kolibri-1
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Kronos
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Laguna M.1
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LBS-27B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Mistral Large 4
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs occamy-1.0
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/hy-memory-30b-a3b-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/hy-memory-30b-a3b.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare hy-memory-30b-a3b lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "hy-memory-30b-a3b", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key