NanoBanana MCP

gemini_chat

Chat with Gemini AI using text and up to 10 reference images to maintain multi-turn conversations with visual context.

Instructions

Chat with Gemini 3.1 Flash model. Supports multi-turn conversations with up to 10 reference images.

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "gemini_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	The message to send to Gemini
`images`	No	Array of image paths to include in the chat (max 10). Supports file paths, 'last', or 'history:N' references.
`conversation_id`	No	Optional conversation ID for maintaining context and accessing image history
`system_prompt`	No	Optional system prompt to guide the model's behavior

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Mar 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses multi-turn support and image limit, but omits return format, authentication/rate limits, and side effects. For an external API call, this is a partial disclosure; not misleading but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource. It adds two key capabilities without waste.

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?

No output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., text response), but it does not. It also lacks practical guidance on using conversation_id for multi-turn beyond the schema, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 baseline 3. The description adds context like 'multi-turn' (relating to conversation_id) and 'reference images,' but these are largely redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Chat with Gemini 3.1 Flash model.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of multi-turn and reference images distinguishes it from sibling image generation/editing and conversation management tools.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the chat tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like clear_conversation or set_model, nor prerequisites for multi-turn (e.g., conversation_id). The description implies but does not instruct.

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

Deploy Server