GoHighLevel MCP

ghl_create_user

Add a team member to your GoHighLevel location, specifying their name, email, phone, role, and granular permissions.

Instructions

Create a new team member in the location.

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": {
      "firstName": "<firstName>",
      "lastName": "<lastName>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_create_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No
`email`	Yes
`phone`	No	E.164 format preferred, e.g. +16135550100
`lastName`	Yes
`firstName`	Yes
`permissions`	No	Granular permission flags

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the creation action. It does not mention whether an invitation is sent, how duplicates are handled, permissions required, or whether changes are reversible. This leaves significant side effects undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No filler or redundant 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?

For a creation tool with a nested permissions object and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after creation, how permissions/role defaults work, or what the response will contain. Given the complexity of the input schema, the description is not minimally sufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'phone' and 'permissions' having descriptions; the tool description adds no parameter details. The nested permissions object lacks per-field meaning, and required fields like firstName/lastName/email are only self-evident by name. The description does not compensate for this low coverage.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new team member') with location scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_update_user and ghl_delete_user. It directly states the action without ambiguity.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing location), related read tools, or exclusions such as 'to update a user, use ghl_update_user'.

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

Deploy Server