Retrieve all workflow folders in the current GoHighLevel location, returning names and IDs for use with workflow moves or filtered lists.
List all workflow folders in the current GHL location. Returns folder names and IDs. Use folder IDs with move_workflow or list_workflows (folderId param).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds scope (location-bound) and the shape of the return (folder names and IDs), which is helpful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior with an empty location.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then output, then downstream usage. No filler and nothing redundant.
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?
With no parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries most of the burden and does so adequately by naming the returned fields and how to consume them. It stops short of documenting ordering or empty-result behavior, which is a minor gap for a simple lookup.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The only parameter-like detail mentioned (folderId) belongs to other tools and is correctly framed as a downstream input.
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?
States a specific verb (List), resource (workflow folders), and scope (current GHL location), and previews the returned fields (names and IDs). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_tags or list_pipelines by naming the exact resource.
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?
It tells the agent what to do with the result (use folder IDs with move_workflow or list_workflows), which is useful downstream routing, but it never states when this tool should or should not be chosen over siblings, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the ID-consumption note rather than explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.