Skip to main content
Glama
Garblesnarff

Gemini MCP Server for Claude Desktop

gemini-chat

Chat with Gemini AI for conversations, questions, and general assistance with learned user preferences. Use this tool to ask questions or get help through Claude Desktop.

Instructions

Chat with Gemini AI for conversations, questions, and general assistance (with learned user preferences)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesYour message or question to chat with Gemini AI
contextNoOptional additional context for the conversation (e.g., "aurora", "debugging", "code")

Implementation Reference

  • The main execution handler for the 'gemini-chat' tool. It validates input, optionally enhances the prompt using the intelligence system, generates a response via the Gemini service, learns from the interaction, and returns a formatted text response.
    async execute(args) {
      const message = validateNonEmptyString(args.message, 'message');
      const context = args.context ? validateString(args.context, 'context') : null;
    
      log(`Processing chat message: "${message}" with context: ${context || 'general'}`, this.name);
    
      try {
        let enhancedMessage = message;
        if (this.intelligenceSystem.initialized) {
          try {
            enhancedMessage = await this.intelligenceSystem.enhancePrompt(message, context);
            log('Applied Tool Intelligence enhancement', this.name);
          } catch (err) {
            log(`Tool Intelligence enhancement failed: ${err.message}`, this.name);
          }
        }
    
        const responseText = await this.geminiService.generateText('CHAT', enhancedMessage);
    
        if (responseText) {
          if (this.intelligenceSystem.initialized) {
            try {
              await this.intelligenceSystem.learnFromInteraction(message, enhancedMessage, responseText, context, this.name);
              log('Tool Intelligence learned from interaction', this.name);
            } catch (err) {
              log(`Tool Intelligence learning failed: ${err.message}`, this.name);
            }
          }
    
          log('Chat response completed successfully', this.name);
    
          let finalResponse = responseText;
          if (context && this.intelligenceSystem.initialized) {
            finalResponse += `\n\n---\n_Enhancement applied based on context: ${context}_`; // eslint-disable-line max-len
          }
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: finalResponse,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
        log('No response text generated', this.name);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `I couldn't generate a response to: "${message}". Please try rephrasing your message.`,
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        log(`Error processing chat: ${error.message}`, this.name);
        throw new Error(`Error processing chat: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
  • The JSON schema defining the input parameters for the 'gemini-chat' tool, including required 'message' and optional 'context'.
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        message: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Your message or question to chat with Gemini AI',
        },
        context: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Optional additional context for the conversation (e.g., "aurora", "debugging", "code")',
        },
      },
      required: ['message'],
    },
  • Registers the 'gemini-chat' tool instance (ChatTool) with the central tool registry by calling registerTool.
    registerTool(new ChatTool(intelligenceSystem, geminiService));
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'learned user preferences,' which hints at personalization, but doesn't clarify what this entails (e.g., how preferences are applied, if they affect responses). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or conversational state management, which are critical for a chat tool with no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, the parenthetical '(with learned user preferences)' could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples that might enhance clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a chat tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like response format, error handling, or how 'learned user preferences' function. For a tool that likely involves nuanced interactions, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'context' interacts with 'message' or provide examples of effective usage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Chat with Gemini AI for conversations, questions, and general assistance.' It specifies the verb ('Chat'), resource ('Gemini AI'), and scope ('conversations, questions, and general assistance'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like gemini-nano-banana-pro or gemini-advanced-image, which might also involve conversational interactions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'learned user preferences' but doesn't explain how this affects usage or when to choose other tools like gemini-analyze-image or gemini-code-execute. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Garblesnarff/gemini-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server