@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Create GoHighLevel Contact Task

ghl_create_contact_task

Create a task for a GoHighLevel contact by specifying the contact ID and title, with optional due date, assignee, and body.

Instructions

Create a task for a contact with POST /contacts/{contactId}/tasks. 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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_create_contact_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No	Optional task body/description.
`extra`	No	Optional additional GoHighLevel fields to pass through when the API supports fields not modeled by this tool.
`title`	Yes	Task title.
`dueDate`	No	Optional due date/time in GoHighLevel's accepted format.
`completed`	No
`assignedTo`	No	Optional user ID to assign the task to.
`contact_id`	Yes	Contact ID.
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses write behavior (matches annotations), adds safety warning, and mentions endpoint. No contradictions. Could detail idempotency or side effects but sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Slightly terse but every word adds value. Could be structured with bullet points but fine.

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?

Covers purpose and safety adequately, but with 8 parameters and no output schema, additional details on return format or typical behavior would improve completeness.

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 coverage is high (88%), so baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter-level details beyond the endpoint. Minimal extra value for parameters.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Create a task for a contact'), identifies the resource and API endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_get_contact_tasks. The safety warning adds further clarity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance that it is a write operation and should not be run on live data without approval. Implicitly distinguishes from read-only task tools via sibling context.

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

Deploy Server