@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Get GoHighLevel Opportunity

ghl_get_opportunity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific opportunity by its ID to access detailed information, including pipeline stage and status. Use this to review or process a single record.

Instructions

Get one opportunity with GET /opportunities/{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": {
      "opportunity_id": "<opportunity_id>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_get_opportunity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which is sufficient. The description adds the HTTP method and path but no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. While it lacks extra details, it is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. Annotations fill the safety profile. It is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning the response_format parameter's impact (though schema covers that).

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?

The input schema already contains full descriptions (100% coverage) for both parameters. The description does not provide additional meaning or context beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Get one opportunity' with the specific HTTP GET method and resource path, unambiguously identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_search_opportunities by focusing on a single record retrieval by ID.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as searching for opportunities. It does not specify prerequisites or exclude cases. The context is merely implied by the tool's name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server