@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Delete GoHighLevel Custom Field V2

ghl_delete_custom_field_v2

Destructive

Delete a Custom Fields V2 field from GoHighLevel. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental deletion.

Instructions

Delete a Custom Fields V2 field with DELETE /custom-fields/{id}. Requires confirm: true and owner approval before live execution.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_delete_custom_field_v2"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Custom Fields V2 field ID.
`confirm`	Yes	Required for destructive tools. The API call is made only when confirm is explicitly true.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the need for confirmation (confirm=true) and owner approval before execution, and includes the HTTP endpoint. These details go beyond the annotations, though it could describe post-deletion effects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, endpoint, and key requirements. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: action, prerequisites, and endpoint. It could be more explicit about the V2 specificity, but overall it is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Custom Fields V2 field). It is specific with verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the V1 version (sibling tool ghl_delete_custom_field), which could cause confusion.

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?

The description mentions the requirement for 'confirm: true' and 'owner approval', giving some usage context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for V1 fields) or alternatives like ghl_update_custom_field_v2 for disabling.

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

Deploy Server