Skip to main content
Glama

dynamodb_item_delete

Delete specific items from AWS DynamoDB tables by specifying table name and key identifiers to manage database content.

Instructions

Delete an item from a DynamoDB table

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_nameYesName of the DynamoDB table
keyYesKey to identify the item

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function within handle_dynamodb_operations that executes the DynamoDB delete_item operation using the provided table_name and key.
    elif name == "dynamodb_item_delete":
        response = dynamodb_client.delete_item(
            TableName=arguments["table_name"],
            Key=arguments["key"]
        )
  • Defines the Tool object including name, description, and input schema requiring table_name (string) and key (object).
    Tool(
        name="dynamodb_item_delete",
        description="Delete an item from a DynamoDB table",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "table_name": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Name of the DynamoDB table"
                },
                "key": {
                    "type": "object",
                    "description": "Key to identify the item"
                }
            },
            "required": ["table_name", "key"]
        }
    ),
  • Registers all AWS tools, including dynamodb_item_delete, by returning get_aws_tools() which aggregates S3 and DynamoDB tools.
    @server.list_tools()
    async def list_tools() -> list[Tool]:
        """List available AWS tools"""
        logger.debug("Handling list_tools request")
        return get_aws_tools()
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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is irreversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., error handling). This leaves significant gaps 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as the irreversible nature of deletion, required permissions, error conditions, or what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or error details). This leaves the agent under-informed about risks and outcomes.

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 both parameters ('table_name' and 'key') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of key structures or table naming conventions, but the schema adequately covers the basics.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('an item from a DynamoDB table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dynamodb_item_batch_write' or 'dynamodb_table_delete', which could also perform deletion operations in different contexts.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dynamodb_item_batch_write' for batch deletions or 'dynamodb_table_delete' for table-level deletions, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing the item's key or appropriate permissions.

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/rishikavikondala/mcp-server-aws'

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