Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nano-banana

nano-banana

by baiano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_model

Change the active image generation model for Nano Banana by setting a new model ID. This lets you switch between available Gemini models for different image generation needs.

Instructions

Change the active image generation model for Nano Banana.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model": "<model>"
    },
    "name": "set_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYesModel ID to set as active. Available: gemini-2.5-flash-image, gemini-2.0-flash-exp-image-generation, gemini-3-pro-image-preview, gemini-3.1-flash-image-preview

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the setting is "active" but never states whether the change persists across sessions, whether it affects in-flight or subsequent generate_image calls, or what permissions are required for a mutating operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It should at least clarify the persistence/scope of the change and point to list_models for ID discovery, which it does not.

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% and the single "model" parameter already lists every valid model ID, so the description has nothing to add. The baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("the active image generation model"), which reads clearly against the sibling verbs generate_image and list_models. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_models (to discover valid IDs) or generate_image, and no stated prerequisites. Only the implied reading of "change the active model" suggests usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools