Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

by NightSquawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Add GoHighLevel Contact To Workflow

ghl_add_contact_to_workflow

Add a contact to a GoHighLevel workflow using contact ID and workflow ID. Write operation requires explicit approval.

Instructions

Add a contact to a workflow with POST /contacts/{contactId}/workflow/{workflowId}. Write operation: do not run against live data without explicit approval.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_add_contact_to_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contact_idYesContact ID.
workflow_idYesWorkflow ID.
response_formatNoOutput format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description states it is a write operation, matching the readOnlyHint=false annotation, and adds a safety warning about live data. This provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, clearly stating the core function and a critical safety caveat. No extraneous information.

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?

The description covers the basic action and safety warning, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist, workflow must accept new contacts). Given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema already fully describes all three parameters, and the tool description does not add any new semantic information beyond mentioning the endpoint path. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value.

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 explicitly states the action (add), resource (contact to workflow), and the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool ghl_remove_contact_from_workflow.

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 includes a warning about not running against live data without approval, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools