@nightsquawktech/gohighlevel-mcp-server

Update GoHighLevel Tag

ghl_update_tag

Idempotent

Update an existing tag in a GoHighLevel location by providing its ID and new name.

Instructions

Update a location tag. 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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_update_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New tag name.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Write operation' confirming non-read-only and provides a safety warning about live data, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. It does not address idempotency or failure behavior.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose and a critical caution. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers the essential caution. However, it lacks explicit details on success/error behavior or return format, though the schema covers parameters.

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%; each parameter is already described. The description adds no extra meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Update a location tag' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tag tools like create, delete, list, and add/remove contact tags by specifying 'update' and warning it's a write operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear caution: 'do not run against live data without explicit approval,' indicating it is a write operation requiring care. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this vs. other tag operations.

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

Deploy Server