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

@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

by NightSquawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get GoHighLevel Custom Value

ghl_get_custom_value
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific custom value from a GoHighLevel location using its ID, with optional location override and output in markdown or JSON format.

Instructions

Get one custom value from /locations/{locationId}/customValues/{id}.

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": {
      "custom_value_id": "<custom_value_id>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_get_custom_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
location_idNoOptional GoHighLevel location ID override. Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID.
custom_value_idYesCustom value 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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds no additional behavioral info beyond stating the read operation, which is consistent with 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks explanation of what a custom value is or how it relates to siblings like custom fields, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with GHL.

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 3 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning. The mention of the endpoint path implicitly references location_id and custom_value_id, but the schema already documents them. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Get one custom value' and provides the specific API endpoint path, which clarifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., ghl_list_custom_values) by emphasizing 'one', but could be more explicit about what a custom value is.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ghl_list_custom_values or ghl_get_custom_field. The agent must infer from context (get one vs list), but explicit usage context is missing.

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