GoHighLevel MCP

ghl_get_funnel_page_count

Count the total pages in a GoHighLevel funnel by providing the funnel ID, with optional name filtering to get a specific page count.

Instructions

Get the total count of pages in a funnel.

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": {
      "funnelId": "<funnelId>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_get_funnel_page_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Filter by page name
`funnelId`	Yes	Funnel ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get the total count' without disclosing whether the count is affected by the optional 'name' filter, return format, or any behavioral constraints. This ambiguity reduces transparency.

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?

One sentence with no redundant wording; very concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the primary purpose, but lacks clarification on the interaction between the optional name filter and the 'total count,' and no output schema or return information is specified. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 'name' and 'funnelId' already described. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'total count of pages in a funnel,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ghl_get_funnel_pages (which retrieves page list) and ghl_get_funnels (list of funnels).

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned, but the name and description imply it is for counting pages. It does not state when to use this vs. ghl_get_funnel_pages, though the distinction is inferable.

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

Deploy Server