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

@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

by NightSquawk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List GoHighLevel Custom Fields

ghl_list_custom_fields
Read-onlyIdempotent

List custom fields for a GoHighLevel location, with pagination and configurable output format (markdown or JSON).

Instructions

List custom fields for a GoHighLevel location from /locations/{locationId}/customFields.

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_list_custom_fields"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint, which is neutral. 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, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the tool's action.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description is adequate. However, it lacks version differentiation from v2 sibling, which is a completeness gap given the context.

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% with defaults, limits, and descriptions. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists custom fields for a location with the endpoint. However, it does not distinguish between ghl_list_custom_fields and ghl_list_custom_fields_v2, which are sibling tools.

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 like the v2 version. No exclusions or context provided.

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