@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Delete GoHighLevel Opportunity

ghl_delete_opportunity

Destructive

Delete a GoHighLevel opportunity by ID, requiring explicit confirmation and owner approval to prevent unintended data loss.

Instructions

Delete an opportunity with DELETE /opportunities/{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": {
      "opportunity_id": "<opportunity_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_delete_opportunity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Required for destructive tools. The API call is made only when confirm is explicitly true.
`opportunity_id`	Yes	Opportunity 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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive. The description adds specific behavioral details: mandatory confirm parameter set to true and owner approval required before execution, which go beyond the annotation indicators.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and immediately provides essential constraints.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and preconditions. However, it omits details about return values, error cases, or side effects beyond deletion, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It mentions confirm must be true, but that is already in the schema. No new insights for opportunity_id or response_format.

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 action 'Delete an opportunity' and specifies the resource 'opportunity' along with the REST endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_get_opportunity or ghl_create_opportunity.

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 required confirm flag and owner approval, giving some usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_update_opportunity_status. The context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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

Deploy Server