@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Update GoHighLevel Contact

ghl_update_contact

Idempotent

Update a GoHighLevel contact's details including name, email, phone, and custom fields by specifying the contact ID.

Instructions

Update a contact with PUT /contacts/{contactId}. Write operation: do not run against live data without explicit approval.

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>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dnd`	No
`city`	No
`name`	No
`tags`	No
`email`	No
`extra`	No	Optional additional GoHighLevel fields to pass through when the API supports fields not modeled by this tool.
`phone`	No
`state`	No
`source`	No
`country`	No
`website`	No
`address1`	No
`lastName`	No
`firstName`	No
`assignedTo`	No
`contact_id`	Yes	Contact ID.
`postalCode`	No
`companyName`	No
`customFields`	No	GoHighLevel customFields array, usually objects with id/key and value.
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation, but the description adds a critical caution about live data usage, enhancing transparency beyond the structured 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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a necessary warning. Efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details on update semantics, return values, validation, and optional parameters like extra fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low (20%) and the description does not explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the deficiency.

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 explicitly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('a contact'), and the HTTP method. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and search.

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?

Provides a warning about write operations and not using on live data without approval, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use update versus alternatives like upsert, create, or merge.

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

Deploy Server