GoHighLevel MCP Server

get_workflow

Retrieve detailed information about a specific workflow in GoHighLevel CRM by providing its workflow ID. Optionally set the response format to markdown or JSON.

Instructions

Get workflow details

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": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workflow_id`	Yes	Workflow ID
`response_format`	No	Response format	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'Get workflow details' with no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Agent has no insight into behavior beyond it being a read operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, no redundancy, and front-loaded. However, extreme brevity limits helpfulness. Earns its place but could benefit from more structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about return values, error cases, or relation to sibling tools. Not fully complete given the existence of similar tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters adequately.

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

Purpose3/5

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

Description states 'Get workflow details' - a verb+resource, but is vague and does not specify what constitutes 'details'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_workflow_stats or list_workflows, which could be confused with this tool.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that this tool retrieves a single workflow by ID, while list_workflows lists all workflows. No exclusions or context provided.

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