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

@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

by NightSquawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get GoHighLevel Location

ghl_get_location
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single GoHighLevel location or sub-account by ID. Return the data as a human-readable markdown summary or structured JSON.

Instructions

Get one GoHighLevel location/sub-account with GET /locations/{locationId}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ghl_get_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
location_idNoOptional GoHighLevel location ID override. Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds HTTP method and path but no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth, rate limits). No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Appropriate length for a simple get tool.

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?

No output schema; description does not mention response structure or format differences (markdown vs json). Minimal completeness for a get tool, but adequate given standard expectations.

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%; both parameters have descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'location/sub-account', and endpoint path. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_get_contact by specifying a different resource.

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?

Description implies use for retrieving a single location by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., no list tools exist). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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