@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Get GoHighLevel Tag

ghl_get_tag

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific tag from a GoHighLevel location using its tag ID. Supports optional location override and markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

Get one tag from /locations/{locationId}/tags/{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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_get_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag_id`	Yes	Tag ID.
`location_id`	No	Optional GoHighLevel location ID override. Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only repeats the endpoint path. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. No additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, auth, rate limits) is provided.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Efficient but could afford slightly more explanation without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does not hint at the return structure. The tool is placed among many tag-related siblings without clarifying its specific role (single retrieval vs. listing, etc.). Annotations are good but description lacks completeness.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states it gets a single tag from a specific endpoint, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_list_tags that also deal with tags.

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 versus alternatives such as ghl_list_tags or other tag tools. No context for prerequisites or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server