GoHighLevel MCP

ghl_add_inbound_message

Inject an inbound SMS, email, or WhatsApp message into a GoHighLevel contact conversation to simulate incoming messages for testing automations.

Instructions

Inject an inbound message into GHL (simulates receiving a message).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "message": "<message>",
      "contactId": "<contactId>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_add_inbound_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`contactId`	Yes
`conversationId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the simulation aspect, which is key, but doesn't disclose side effects like whether it creates a conversation, triggers workflows, or requires existing contacts. This limited transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the core purpose and key behavioral nuance in just a few words.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, required context (e.g., must contactId already exist?), or how this differs from sending a message. The tool is not fully specified for an agent to use confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of any parameter. It does not explain the meaning of 'type', 'message', 'contactId', or 'conversationId', nor does it compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions. With no parameter documentation beyond the schema, this is a significant gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Inject') and identifies the resource ('inbound message into GHL'), clarifying it simulates receiving a message. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_send_message, which send outbound messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical 'simulates receiving a message' implies its use for testing or simulating inbound messages. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like ghl_send_message, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server