cosmosdb-mcp

cosmosdb_query_items_to_file

Query a Cosmos DB container with SQL and export results to a JSON file. Returns only the item count, ideal for large result sets.

Instructions

Run a SQL query against a Cosmos DB container and save results to a file.

Results are written to output_file as a JSON array. Only the item count is returned in context — use this variant when the result set may be large to avoid filling the context window. max_items is capped at 1000.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "database": "<database>",
      "container": "<container>",
      "query": "<query>",
      "output_file": "<output_file>"
    },
    "name": "cosmosdb_query_items_to_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes
`database`	Yes
`container`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`output_file`	Yes
`max_items`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers key behaviors: writes to file as JSON array, returns only item count, and caps max_items at 1000. Could be improved by mentioning file overwrite behavior.

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 very concise, with front-loaded purpose and additional details in short sentences. No redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description's mention of return value (item count) and file output is sufficient. Minor gaps remain around error handling and file overwrite behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description only adds meaning for output_file and max_items (cap). The main parameters account, database, container, query are not elaborated beyond their basic role in a query.

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 runs a SQL query and saves results to a file, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cosmosdb_query_items which likely return results in context.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly advises using this variant when result sets may be large to avoid filling the context window, and mentions the max_items cap of 1000.

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

Deploy Server