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

@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

by NightSquawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get GoHighLevel Pipelines

ghl_get_pipelines
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve opportunity pipelines for a GoHighLevel location using the location ID, with options to limit and offset results.

Instructions

List opportunity pipelines with GET /opportunities/pipelines?locationId={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_pipelines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return from the local page.
offsetNoNumber of items to skip locally after receiving the API response.
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds no behavioral details beyond the API call. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or other traits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 filler. Every word is necessary.

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?

For a simple list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but could mention the response format or clarify that it returns a list of pipelines. However, given the low complexity, it's nearly complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by showing the endpoint with locationId placeholder, but this is already implied by schemas for location_id parameter.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'opportunity pipelines', and mentions the API endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings, as no other sibling lists pipelines.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, since it's a straightforward list operation and no other sibling lists pipelines, the need is low. But still, the description does not provide any usage context.

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