Fix tag codec packaging mismatch

[abrookins]

Summary

• decouple server tag validation from the Python client package so server imports do not depend on agent_memory_client.utils
• bump the Python client to 0.14.1, the server to 0.15.1, and require agent-memory-client>=0.14.1
• fix existing notebook lint issues so repo-wide ruff check passes

Verification

• uv run pytest --run-api-tests
• cd agent-memory-client && uv run pytest
• uv run ruff check
• built agent_memory_client-0.14.1 wheel and verified agent_memory_client.utils.tag_codec imports from a clean venv
• built agent_memory_server-0.15.1 + agent_memory_client-0.14.1 wheels and verified agent_memory_server.cli and agent_memory_server.models import from a clean venv
• verified agent_memory_server-0.15.1 no longer resolves with agent-memory-client==0.14.0 because of the new dependency floor

---

Note

Medium Risk
Moderate risk because it changes a Pydantic validation dependency path and enforces a new minimum agent-memory-client version, which can affect packaging/import behavior and deployments with pinned dependencies.

Overview
Fixes a packaging/import mismatch in tag validation by inlining validate_no_commas_in_tags in agent_memory_server.utils.tag_codec instead of importing it from the Python client, and adds a regression test to ensure the server module imports even when agent_memory_client.utils is missing.

Versioning/deps are updated: client bumps to 0.14.1, server to 0.15.1, and pyproject.toml now requires agent-memory-client>=0.14.1 (including dev extras). The interactive guide notebook is also adjusted (e.g., datetime.UTC usage / minor formatting) to keep repo-wide ruff checks passing.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7ac14c5. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[github-actions]

The decoupling of tag validation from the client package is well-executed. The implementation correctly duplicates the validation logic and adds appropriate test coverage.

---

🤖 Automated review complete. Please react with 👍 or 👎 on the individual review comments to provide feedback on their usefulness.

[jit-ci]

🛡️ Jit Security Scan Results

✅ No security findings were detected in this PR

---

^{Security scan by Jit}

[tylerhutcherson]

thanks!