Retrieve all users with access to a GoHighLevel location, including names, emails, roles, and permissions. Use it to audit access and manage team permissions.
List all users with access to the current GoHighLevel location. Returns user names, emails, roles, and permissions.
| 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the scope ('current location') and the returned fields, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what a read-only list implies.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently describes the return values without an output schema.
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 simple parameterless list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it states the scope and returned fields. It does not mention pagination or how the 'current location' is determined, but those are minor gaps for this level of complexity.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% but there is nothing for the description to compensate for; no parameter semantics are needed.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all users') with a clear scope ('with access to the current GoHighLevel location'). This resource focus clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools such as list_tags and list_pipelines, which target different entities.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description merely states what it does; it does not help an agent decide between this and any other tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.