Skip to main content
Glama

cosmosdb_item_replace

Replace an existing item in an Azure Cosmos DB container by providing the item ID, partition key, and updated JSON data.

Instructions

Replace an item in a Cosmos DB container

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
container_nameYesName of the Cosmos DB container
database_nameNoName of the Cosmos DB database (optional, defaults to 'defaultdb')
item_idYesID of the item to replace
partition_keyYesPartition key value for the item
itemYesUpdated item data (JSON object)

Implementation Reference

  • Execution logic for the cosmosdb_item_replace tool: retrieves the container client and calls replace_item with the provided item_id, partition_key (used earlier), and new item body.
        name == "cosmosdb_item_replace"
    ):  # Renamed from update to replace, and table to container, using replace_item for full replace
        container_client = database.get_container_client(
            arguments["container_name"]
        )
        item = container_client.replace_item(
            item=arguments["item_id"], body=arguments["item"]
        )
        response = {"item_id": item["id"], "replaced": True}
    elif name == "cosmosdb_item_delete":  # Renamed table to container
  • Input schema definition for the cosmosdb_item_replace tool, specifying parameters like container_name, database_name (optional), item_id, partition_key, and item.
    Tool(
        name="cosmosdb_item_replace",  # Renamed from update to replace, and table to container, using replace_item for full replace
        description="Replace an item in a Cosmos DB container",  # Updated description
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "container_name": {  # Renamed from table_name
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Name of the Cosmos DB container",  # Updated description
                },
                "database_name": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Name of the Cosmos DB database (optional, defaults to 'defaultdb')",
                },
                "item_id": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "ID of the item to replace",
                },
                "partition_key": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Partition key value for the item",
                },
                "item": {
                    "type": "object",
                    "description": "Updated item data (JSON object)",
                },
            },
            "required": ["container_name", "item_id", "partition_key", "item"],
        },
    ),
  • Registration of all Azure tools, including cosmosdb_item_replace, via the list_tools handler that returns get_azure_tools().
    async def list_tools() -> list[Tool]:
        """List available Azure tools"""
        logger.debug("Handling list_tools request")
        return get_azure_tools()  # Use get_azure_tools
  • Tool dispatch logic in call_tool that routes cosmosdb_* tools, including cosmosdb_item_replace, to the handle_cosmosdb_operations function.
    elif name.startswith("cosmosdb_"):  # Updated prefix to cosmosdb_
        return await handle_cosmosdb_operations(
            azure_rm, name, arguments
        )  # Use cosmosdb handler
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 'Replace an item' which implies a destructive write operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects: whether this overwrites the entire item or merges fields, what happens if the item doesn't exist (e.g., error vs. creation), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 database mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), usage context compared to siblings, and return values. For a tool that modifies data in a Cosmos DB container, more context is needed to guide safe and 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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., container_name, item_id, partition_key, item as JSON object). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('an item in a Cosmos DB container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cosmosdb_item_create, cosmosdb_item_delete, and cosmosdb_item_read by specifying replacement rather than creation, deletion, or reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cosmosdb_item_query or other Cosmos DB operations beyond the basic verb.

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 prerequisites (e.g., existing item), contrast with cosmosdb_item_create for new items or cosmosdb_item_read for retrieval, or specify error conditions like missing items. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mashriram/azure_mcp_server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server