GoHighLevel MCP Server

get_contact

Retrieve a contact's details from GoHighLevel CRM by providing the contact ID. Returns data in markdown or JSON format.

Instructions

Get a contact

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contact_id`	Yes	Contact ID
`response_format`	No	Response format	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation. With no annotations, the agent has no clarity on side effects, authorization needs, or data scope. The description adds no value over the tool name itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is too minimal. It could include more information without being verbose. It is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks substance. Scores a 3 as it is adequate but not efficient in conveying necessary details.

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?

The description is incomplete given the simplicity of the tool. It does not mention the return format or the data shape, despite the response_format parameter hinting at markdown or json. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks context to interpret results. Missing details on what fields a contact contains.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (contact_id, response_format) having descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a contact' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (contact), implying retrieval of a single contact by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts (which is for listing/searching) and create_contact (creation). However, it is not explicit about using contact_id, which is clarified in the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_contacts or get_conversation. The description does not provide context for usage scenarios or prerequisites. Simply stating 'Get a contact' leaves the agent without decision-supporting information.

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