Gemini MCP Server

by salviz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

gemini_delete_file

Delete a file stored in Google's Gemini API by providing its file name from upload or list.

Instructions

Delete a file from the Gemini Files API

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": {
      "fileName": "<fileName>"
    },
    "name": "gemini_delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileName`	Yes	File name (e.g., "files/abc123") from upload or list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only states 'Delete a file' without disclosing permanence, irreversibility, or potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). This is insufficient for a destructive 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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though additional context could be added without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the result of deletion is (e.g., confirmation, error codes) or whether the file must exist. For a destructive action, more context is needed.

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 parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a file from the Gemini Files API', clearly identifying the verb (delete), resource (file), and API context. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like upload and list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after confirming file is no longer needed). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent with only implied usage.

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