Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ghl-api-mcp

ghl-api-mcp

by S5-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_endpoints

Retrieve GoHighLevel API endpoints filtered by HTTP method, path substring, or section to quickly locate the needed endpoint.

Instructions

List available API endpoints with optional method/path/section filters.

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": "list_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return (default: 25).
methodNoHTTP method filter (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE).
path_containsNoFilter endpoint path by substring.
section_containsNoFilter by section or operation title.
whitelabel_domainNoOptional whitelabel API domain or base URL to use when rendering endpoint URLs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description is too terse to inform about safety or limitations.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word serves a purpose.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not explain return values, default behaviors, or any limitations. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, as it merely restates 'method/path/section filters'.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'available API endpoints'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_endpoint_details (which is for specific endpoints) and list_docs (which lists documents).

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 only mentions optional filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use context is given.

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