NanoBanana MCP

clear_conversation

Remove conversation history for a specific conversation ID to manage storage and maintain privacy in the NanoBanana MCP server.

Instructions

Clear conversation history for a specific conversation ID

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": {
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "clear_conversation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversation_id`	Yes	The conversation ID to clear

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Mar 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 indicates a destructive action ('clear') but does not state whether the operation is irreversible, affects persistent storage, requires specific permissions, or what the outcome will be. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and object directly. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still omits critical behavioral context such as permanence of deletion, side effects on active chat sessions, or whether any confirmation is required. The lack of annotations and output schema places the burden on the description, which does not meet it.

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%, as the only parameter (conversation_id) is described as 'The conversation ID to clear'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond referencing 'a specific conversation ID', which matches the schema. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Clear') and the resource ('conversation history') with a specific scope ('for a specific conversation ID'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which handle image generation, chat, and model settings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (call this when you need to clear a conversation's history) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since no sibling performs a similar function, explicit alternative guidance is not necessary, but the description still lacks any context about prerequisites or suitability.

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

Deploy Server