ghl_list_subaccountsLists linked GoHighLevel sub-accounts and returns each location ID, name, and enabled services, helping you identify available accounts for call routing and service management.
GET /v1/ghl/subaccounts (permission callcenter:read or callcenter:write). Returns [{ locationId, name, services: [...] }] for each linked GoHighLevel sub-account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the concrete auth requirement and the JSON shape of the response array, which is real value beyond structured fields. It doesn't mention pagination, result-size limits, or what an empty list means, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero padding, with the endpoint and permission scope front-loaded ahead of the return shape. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the auth requirement, and the exact response fields, which is everything needed to call it and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the description has nothing parameter-level to compensate for; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and returns all linked sub-accounts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb and resource (list linked GoHighLevel sub-accounts) and even specifies the underlying endpoint GET /v1/ghl/subaccounts plus the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as ghl_set_services, but the resource is distinct enough from the other list_* tools to avoid confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and the endpoint, and the permission scopes (callcenter:read or callcenter:write) are a useful prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step before ghl_set_services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.