Skip to main content
Glama

dynamodb_item_put

Add or update an item in a DynamoDB table by specifying the table name and item data.

Instructions

Put an item into a DynamoDB table

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_nameYesName of the DynamoDB table
itemYesItem data to put

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler logic for the 'dynamodb_item_put' tool within the handle_dynamodb_operations function. It invokes the DynamoDB client's put_item method using the provided table_name and item arguments.
    elif name == "dynamodb_item_put":
        response = dynamodb_client.put_item(
            TableName=arguments["table_name"],
            Item=arguments["item"]
        )
  • The input schema definition for the 'dynamodb_item_put' tool, specifying required parameters: table_name (string) and item (object).
    Tool(
        name="dynamodb_item_put",
        description="Put an item into a DynamoDB table",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "table_name": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Name of the DynamoDB table"
                },
                "item": {
                    "type": "object",
                    "description": "Item data to put"
                }
            },
            "required": ["table_name", "item"]
        }
    ),
  • The list_tools handler registration that returns the list of AWS tools from get_aws_tools(), which includes the 'dynamodb_item_put' tool with its schema.
    @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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Put') but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this overwrites existing items, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or returns any output. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its effects.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, whether items are overwritten, or any error conditions. For a DynamoDB write tool, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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 clear documentation for 'table_name' and 'item'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as item format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Put') and target ('an item into a DynamoDB table'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dynamodb_item_update' or 'dynamodb_item_batch_write', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific tool over 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dynamodb_item_update' for modifications or 'dynamodb_item_batch_write' for multiple items. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as table existence, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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/rishikavikondala/mcp-server-aws'

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