GoHighLevel MCP

ghl_update_knowledge_base

Update the name or description of an existing knowledge base. Provide the knowledge base ID and the new name or description to apply changes.

Instructions

Update the name or description of an existing knowledge base. Returns { success: true } on success.

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": {
      "knowledgeBaseId": "<knowledgeBaseId>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_update_knowledge_base"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the knowledge base
`description`	No	New description for the knowledge base
`knowledgeBaseId`	Yes	The knowledge base ID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the success return value but does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or consequences of updating non-existent IDs. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two sentences, with the action stated first and the return value second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema. The schema documents all parameters, and the description explains the return format. It misses potential error cases but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is adequately complete.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), with descriptions like 'New name for the knowledge base'. The tool description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond naming the fields, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'knowledge base' and explicitly names the fields ('name or description'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/get by focusing on modification of existing resources.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies use for updating an existing knowledge base's name or description. While it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous given sibling tools, and it says 'existing' to signal that the resource must already exist.

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

Deploy Server