de en es ja ko ru zh

DynamoDB Read-Only MCP

Name: DynamoDB Read-Only MCP
Author: jjikky

by jjikky

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

DynamoDB 読み取り専用 MCP

npmバージョン鍛冶屋のバッジ

モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）を利用してAWS DynamoDBデータベースにクエリを実行するサーバー。このサーバーにより、ClaudeのようなLLMは自然言語リクエストを通じてDynamoDBデータをクエリできるようになります。

特徴

この MCP サーバーは次の機能を提供します。

テーブル管理ツール:
- list-tables : すべての DynamoDB テーブルのリストを表示する
- describe-table : 特定のテーブルに関する詳細情報を表示する
データクエリツール:
- scan-table : テーブルのデータ全体または一部をスキャンする
- query-table : テーブル内の特定の条件に一致するデータを検索する
- paginate-query-table : 特定の条件に一致する複数のページにわたるデータを取得する
- get-item : 特定のキーを持つアイテムを取得する
- count-items : テーブル内のアイテム数を計算する
リソース：
- dynamodb-tables-info : すべてのテーブルのメタデータを提供するリソース
- dynamodb-table-schema : 特定のテーブルのスキーマ情報を提供するリソース
プロンプト:
- dynamodb-query-help : DynamoDB クエリを書くためのヘルププロンプト

Related MCP server: Azure Cosmos DB MCP Server

インストールと実行

以下のRun with NPXメソッドを使用すると、インストールせずに実行できます。

Smithery経由でインストール

Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の DynamoDB 読み取り専用サーバーを自動的にインストールするには:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @jjikky/dynamo-readonly-mcp --client claude

インストール

リポジトリをクローンします。

git clone https://github.com/jjikky/dynamo-readonly-mcp.git
cd dynamo-readonly-mcp

必要なパッケージをインストールします。
```
npm install
```

.envファイルを作成し、AWS 認証情報を設定します。

AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=your_access_key
AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=your_secret_key
AWS_REGION=your_region

ビルドと実行

npm run build
npm start

Claudeデスクトップに接続

この MCP サーバーを Claude Desktop で使用するには、Claude Desktop 構成ファイルを変更する必要があります。

Claude Desktop 構成ファイルを開きます。
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

次のようにサーバー構成を追加します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "dynamodb-readonly": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute-path/dynamo-readonly-mcp/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID": "your_access_key",
        "AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY": "your_secret_key",
        "AWS_REGION": "your_region"
      }
    }
  }
}

Claude Desktop を再起動します。

NPXで実行

グローバルインストールなしでnpxを使用してこのサーバーを実行することもできます。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "dynamodb-readonly": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "dynamo-readonly-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID": "your_access_key",
        "AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY": "your_secret_key",
        "AWS_REGION": "your_region"
      }
    }
  }
}

使用例

クロードに次のような質問をすることができます:

「DynamoDB にはどのようなテーブルがあるのか教えていただけますか？」
「Usersテーブルの構造を説明する」
「「Users」テーブルで、グループIDが「0lxp4paxk7」であるユーザーの数を見つけます」

建築

この MCP サーバーは次の階層構造で構成されています。

クライアントインターフェース（Claude Desktop） - ユーザーとLLM間のインタラクション
MCPプロトコル層- 標準化されたメッセージ交換方法を提供する
DynamoDB サーバー- DynamoDB と対話する関数を実装します
AWS SDK - AWS DynamoDB サービスと通信します

主要な操作メカニズム

1. 初期化と接続

サーバーが起動すると、次のプロセスが実行されます。

async function main() {
  const transport = new StdioServerTransport();
  await server.connect(transport);
  console.error('DynamoDB read-only MCP server is running...');
}

StdioServerTransport標準入出力を介して通信チャネルを設定します。
server.connect(transport) MCP プロトコルを介して Claude Desktop に接続します。
接続中に、サーバーはサポートされているツール、リソース、およびプロンプトに関する情報をクライアントに送信します。

2. ツール要求処理

ユーザーが Claude に「DynamoDB テーブルのリストを表示してください」のような質問をした場合:

クロードはこのリクエストを分析し、 list-tablesツールを呼び出します。
この要求は、MCP プロトコルを通じてサーバーに送信されます。
サーバーは対応するツールハンドラーを実行します。

server.tool('list-tables', 'Gets a list of all DynamoDB tables', {}, async () => {
  try {
    const tables = await listTables();
    return {
      content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(tables, null, 2) }],
    };
  } catch (error) {
    return { isError: true, content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }] };
  }
});

結果は MCP プロトコルを通じて Claude に返されます。
クロードはこの結果を自然言語に変換し、ユーザーに提示します。

3. 特定のパラメータ処理

ユーザーが「Users テーブルの構造を教えてください」と要求した場合:

Claude は、このリクエストではdescribe-tableツールを使用する必要があると判断しました。
Claude はパラメータを{ tableName: "Users" }として設定します。
この情報は MCP サーバーに送信されます。

server.tool(
  'describe-table',
  'Gets detailed information about a DynamoDB table',
  {
    tableName: z.string().describe('Name of the table to get detailed information for'),
  },
  async ({ tableName }) => {
    // Query table information using the tableName parameter
    const tableInfo = await describeTable(tableName);
    // Return results
  }
);

ここで、 z.string()は Zod ライブラリを使用してパラメータを検証します。

4. リソースの取り扱い

リソースは、読み取り専用データを提供するもう 1 つの MCP 機能です。

server.resource('dynamodb-tables-info', 'DynamoDB table information', async () => {
  // Create and return resource data
  const tables = await listTables();
  const tablesInfo = await Promise.all(/* Query table information */);

  return {
    contents: [
      {
        uri: 'dynamodb://tables-info',
        text: JSON.stringify(tablesInfo, null, 2),
        mimeType: 'application/json',
      },
    ],
  };
});

クロードはリソースにアクセスし、それをコンテキスト情報として使用します。

5. 迅速な対応

MCP サーバーは、特定のタスクのプロンプトテンプレートを提供できます。

server.prompt(
  'dynamodb-query-help',
  'A prompt that helps write DynamoDB queries',
  {
    tableName: z.string().describe('Table name to query'),
    queryType: z.enum(['basic', 'advanced']).default('basic'),
  },
  async ({ tableName, queryType }) => {
    // Generate prompt content
    return {
      messages: [
        {
          role: 'user',
          content: { type: 'text', text: helpContent },
        },
      ],
    };
  }
);

このプロンプトは、ユーザーが「Users テーブルのクエリの記述方法を教えてください」と要求したときに使用されます。

データフローの概要

ユーザーは自然言語でクロードにリクエストを送信します
クロードはリクエストを分析し、適切なMCPツール/リソース/プロンプトを選択します。
MCPクライアントは標準化された形式でサーバーにリクエストを送信します。
サーバーはリクエストを処理し、AWS DynamoDB API を呼び出します。
DynamoDBは結果を返します
サーバーは結果をMCP形式に変換し、クライアントに送信します。
クロードは結果を自然言語で処理し、ユーザーに提示します。

ライセンス

このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています - 詳細については LICENSE ファイルを参照してください。

Available Tools

7 tools

count-itemsB

Count items in a DynamoDB table

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expressionAttributeValues`	No	Filter expression attribute values (optional)
`filterExpression`	No	Filter expression (optional)
`tableName`	Yes	Table name

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., whether it's optimized for counting vs. full scans), error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or permissions required for DynamoDB operations.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but lacks context about when to use it versus siblings, behavioral details, or output format, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying filtering is possible, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Count') and resource ('items in a DynamoDB table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan-table' or 'query-table' which might also return counts, so it misses the top score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'scan-table' and 'query-table' that might offer similar functionality, there's no indication of when this specific counting tool is preferred or what its limitations are.

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

describe-tableC

Get detailed information about a DynamoDB table

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tableName`	Yes	Name of the table to get details for

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get detailed information') but doesn't reveal critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., schema, throughput, status). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of DynamoDB operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., table properties, metrics), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool interacting with a database system, more context is needed to ensure reliable use, especially with multiple sibling tools available.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'tableName' clearly documented as 'Name of the table to get details for'. The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is provided.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a DynamoDB table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list-tables' (which lists table names) or 'get-item' (which retrieves specific items), leaving some ambiguity about what 'detailed information' specifically entails compared to other table-related tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like needing metadata vs. data retrieval, or how it differs from siblings such as 'list-tables' for table enumeration or 'get-item' for item-level details. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately among the six sibling tools.

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

get-itemC

Get an item from a DynamoDB table based on a specific key

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Item key (JSON format)
`tableName`	Yes	Table name

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the key doesn't exist. For a database read operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 database read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or operational constraints. Given the complexity of DynamoDB operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('an item from a DynamoDB table') with the specific mechanism ('based on a specific key'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan-table' or 'query-table' by emphasizing key-based retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'paginate-query-table'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or compare with sibling tools like 'query-table' for more complex retrievals or 'scan-table' for full table scans.

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

list-tablesB

Get a list of all DynamoDB tables

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 complexity of DynamoDB operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to operate this tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all DynamoDB tables'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe-table' or 'scan-table' that also involve table operations, missing explicit distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for metadata listing versus data retrieval (like 'scan-table') or if there are prerequisites such as permissions. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.

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

paginate-query-tableC

Paginate query results

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expressionAttributeValues`	Yes	Filter expression attribute values (JSON format)
`keyConditionExpression`	Yes	Key condition expression (e.g: 'PK = :pk')
`projectionExpression`	No	Projection expression (optional)
`tableName`	Yes	Table name

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'paginate' which implies handling large result sets, but doesn't disclose pagination mechanics (e.g., token-based, limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'query' in this context. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('paginate query results') and contains no unnecessary elaboration.

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 pagination tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'paginate' means operationally, how results are returned, error conditions, or relationship to the 'query-table' sibling. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps.

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%, providing good documentation for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Paginate query results' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource is being paginated (DynamoDB table query results) and how it differs from the sibling 'query-table' tool. It uses a clear verb ('paginate') but doesn't distinguish from alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the 'query-table' sibling or other query/scan alternatives. The description implies pagination functionality but doesn't specify prerequisites, when pagination is needed, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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

query-tableC

Query items from a DynamoDB table based on conditions

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expressionAttributeValues`	Yes	Filter expression attribute values (JSON format)
`filterExpression`	No	Filter expression (optional)
`indexName`	No	Name of the index to use (optional)
`keyConditionExpression`	Yes	Key condition expression (e.g: 'PK = :pk')
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return
`projectionExpression`	No	Projection expression (optional)
`tableName`	Yes	Name of the table to query

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 states the tool queries items but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it has side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a DynamoDB query tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'conditions' relate to the filter and key condition expressions. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Query items') and resource ('from a DynamoDB table') with the purpose ('based on conditions'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan-table' by specifying querying rather than scanning, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'paginate-query-table' which might be a related operation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan-table' or 'paginate-query-table'. It mentions conditions but doesn't specify that this is for key-based queries in DynamoDB, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

scan-tableC

Scan items from a DynamoDB table

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expressionAttributeValues`	No	Filter expression attribute values (JSON format)
`filterExpression`	No	Filter expression (e.g: 'age > :minAge')
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return (default: 20)
`projectionExpression`	No	Projection expression (e.g: "id")
`tableName`	Yes	Name of the table to scan

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Scan' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is paginated, has performance implications for large tables, requires specific permissions, or what the output format looks like. For a DynamoDB operation with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 DynamoDB scanning tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'scanning' means in DynamoDB context (sequential reads vs. query efficiency), doesn't mention performance considerations for large tables, and provides no information about return format or pagination behavior.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'filterExpression' works with 'expressionAttributeValues' or typical scanning patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('scan') and resource ('items from a DynamoDB table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'query-table' or 'paginate-query-table' which might also retrieve data from DynamoDB tables, missing an opportunity for sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query-table' or 'get-item'. It doesn't mention typical use cases for scanning (e.g., full table reads vs. indexed queries) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

7 tool updatesv1.0.0Apr 29, 2025
- First observedcount-items
- First observeddescribe-table
- First observedget-item
- First observedlist-tables
- First observedpaginate-query-table
- First observedquery-table
- First observedscan-table

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 10:51 across 7 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: count-items focuses on counting, describe-table on metadata, get-item on single retrieval, list-tables on table enumeration, paginate-query-table on pagination, query-table on conditional queries, and scan-table on full scans. The descriptions clearly differentiate each tool's function, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (e.g., count-items, describe-table, get-item). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the naming predictable and easy to understand across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a read-only DynamoDB server, covering essential operations like listing, describing, retrieving, querying, scanning, and counting. Each tool earns its place without redundancy, fitting within the typical 3-15 range for focused server purposes.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive read-only coverage for DynamoDB, including table listing, metadata retrieval, item access, queries, scans, and pagination. A minor gap exists in not supporting batch operations like batch-get-item, but agents can work around this with existing tools, and the core read workflows are well-covered.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

mcpOAuth
com.gibsonai
GibsonAI MCP server: manage your databases with natural language
Databases Search
233
AI2SQLOAuth
io.ai2sql
Text-to-SQL MCP server: read-only queries on PostgreSQL, MySQL and SQL Server with your real schema
Databases Developer Tools
1
RampOAuth
com.ramp.ramp-mcp-remote
The Ramp MCP server enables users to securely connect Ramp with AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude to query financial data and take actions using natural language. It transforms Ramp's developer API into a SQL interface that LLMs can query, allowing admins to analyze spend trends, identify cost savings, and run complex SQL analyses on comprehensive datasets (transactions, purchase orders, vendors, users), while all users can manage cards, view transactions, request reimbursements, and get expense policy answers.
Finance Databases Search
2
Artificial Wit AIOAuth
com.artificialwit
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
ERP Systems CRM Knowledge & Memory
2

Related MCP Servers

MCP-Python
Databases Developer Tools Search
rhabraken
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A server that enables interaction with PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, or SQLite databases through Claude Desktop using natural language queries.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-02-12 06:09 UTC)
1
-
Azure Cosmos DB MCP Server
Databases RAG Systems
robinong79
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
A server that enables LLMs like Claude to interact with Azure Cosmos DB databases through natural language queries, acting as a translator between AI assistants and database systems.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-24 06:37 UTC)
4
3
MIT
PlayFab MCP Server
Databases RAG Systems Developer Tools
akiojin
A
license
C
quality
A
maintenance
A server that enables LLMs (like Claude and VSCode Copilot) to interact with Azure Cosmos DB data through natural language queries, acting as a translator between AI assistants and your database.
Updated 13 hours ago (2026-10-13 23:19 UTC)
3
15 npm
3
MIT
MCP Database Server
anit05
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
This server provides database access capabilities to Claude, supporting SQLite, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and MySQL databases.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-15 04:32 UTC)
693 npm
MIT

DynamoDB 読み取り専用 MCP

特徴

インストールと実行

Smithery経由でインストール

インストール

ビルドと実行

Claudeデスクトップに接続

NPXで実行

使用例

建築

主要な操作メカニズム

1. 初期化と接続

2. ツール要求処理

3. 特定のパラメータ処理

4. リソースの取り扱い

5. 迅速な対応

データフローの概要

ライセンス

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches