DeepSeek MCP Server

reset_conversation

DestructiveIdempotent

Clear stored chat history for a conversation ID to start a fresh thread without changing the ID. Affects only server-side memory in the current process.

Instructions

Delete stored in-memory chat history for a conversation_id. Use this when you want to keep the same ID but start a fresh thread. This only affects server-side memory in the current MCP process.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`message`	No
`removed`	No
`retryable`	No
`error_type`	No
`suggestion`	No
`conversation_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Sep 12, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "conversation_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error_type": {
+      "enum": [
+        "deepseek_api_error",
+        "tool_execution_error"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "removed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "retryable": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "suggestion": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.5.0May 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond them by scoping the destruction to server-side memory 'in the current MCP process' and clarifying the conversation_id itself survives, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage intent, then scope limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-param destructive reset with an output schema present, the description covers action, intent, and blast radius adequately. The only minor gap is behavior when the conversation_id doesn't exist, but return values are handled by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and there is one required param, but the description clarifies the semantics of conversation_id: it is the identifier of the thread whose history is erased, and it remains valid afterward. That is meaningful added meaning, though it doesn't state the format or error behavior for unknown IDs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (stored in-memory chat history) scoped to a conversation_id, and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_file or list_conversations. The 'in-memory' qualifier immediately frames what kind of history is affected.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear when-to-use context: 'Use this when you want to keep the same ID but start a fresh thread.' This tells the agent the intent (reset rather than delete the conversation), though it names no explicit alternative sibling tool for the opposite case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server