@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Update GoHighLevel Custom Field V2

ghl_update_custom_field_v2

Idempotent

Update an existing GoHighLevel custom field v2 by its ID to change name, data type, options, or other properties. Modifies field configuration for contacts, opportunities, or other objects.

Instructions

Update a Custom Fields V2 field with PUT /custom-fields/{id}. 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_update_custom_field_v2"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Custom Fields V2 field ID.
`name`	No
`extra`	No	Optional additional GoHighLevel fields to pass through when the API supports fields not modeled by this tool.
`options`	No
`dataType`	No
`parentId`	No
`objectKey`	No
`locationId`	No	Optional explicit location ID. Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID.
`description`	No
`placeholder`	No
`showInForms`	No
`maxFileLimit`	No
`acceptedFormats`	No
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown
`allowCustomOption`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency (idempotentHint true). Description adds a safety warning about not using on live data without approval, which is beneficial, but lacks details on update behavior (full vs partial replacement) or error handling.

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?

Description is only two sentences, concise and to the point. It includes a necessary warning. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It omits key information about what fields are updatable, how options work, and how to handle responses. Essential for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 27% (4 of 15 parameters have descriptions), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, leaving many parameters (e.g., name, options, dataType) poorly documented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'Custom Fields V2 field', and the HTTP method 'PUT /custom-fields/{id}', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list.

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?

Description provides only a warning about live data but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as ghl_update_custom_field (non-v2) or create/delete operations. No explicit context for usage.

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

Deploy Server