@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Remove GoHighLevel Contact From Workflow

ghl_remove_contact_from_workflow

Destructive

Remove a contact from a workflow by providing contact ID and workflow ID. Requires explicit confirmation to execute.

Instructions

Remove a contact from a workflow with DELETE /contacts/{contactId}/workflow/{workflowId}. Requires confirm: true and owner approval before live execution.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_remove_contact_from_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Required for destructive tools. The API call is made only when confirm is explicitly true.
`contact_id`	Yes	Contact ID.
`workflow_id`	Yes	Workflow 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral requirements (confirm parameter and owner approval) beyond what annotations provide, without 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?

The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the action and endpoint, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and a simple removal operation, the description is largely complete. It lacks details on error scenarios or idempotency behavior, but idempotentHint=false is available in annotations.

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%, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Remove a contact from a workflow') and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_add_contact_to_workflow and ghl_delete_contact.

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 mentions the prerequisite of 'confirm: true' and 'owner approval before live execution', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_remove_contact_tags or provide exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server