ghl_custom_values_auditRead-only audit of sub-account Custom Values and SMS/email templates for broken merge tags or missing placeholders. Example: ghl_custom_values_audit({"locationId":"loc_123"})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locationId | No | Target HighLevel sub-account location ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actionRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Validate templates for broken merge tags, diff values, or sync.",
- "enum": [
- "validate",
- "diff",
- "sync"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral scope by naming the audited resources and the specific problems detected, though it does not describe report contents, permissions, or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two compact sentences and front-loads the purpose before giving a minimal invocation example. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding or calling the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It is adequate for a simple, well-annotated audit tool: it identifies scope, behavior, and an example call. However, with no output schema, it should clarify what the audit returns or how findings are reported, and it should explain the effect of omitting the optional locationId.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single locationId parameter is already well documented. The example demonstrates invocation with locationId, but the description does not explain optionality or what happens if locationId is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: a read-only audit of sub-account Custom Values and SMS/email templates. It also specifies the exact issue being checked, broken merge tags or missing placeholders, which clearly distinguishes it from the other audit and agency tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the audit purpose: an agent should use this when it needs to detect broken merge tags or missing placeholders. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it, when not to use it, or name any alternative sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.