GoHighLevel MCP Server

list_conversations

Retrieve all conversations associated with a specific contact in GoHighLevel CRM. Filter results by limit and offset, and choose markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

List conversations

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": "list_conversations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of results
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, pagination details, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It omits required parameters, response format options, and any behavioral context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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?

The description 'List conversations' provides a clear verb and resource but is vague. It does not specify scope or filtering, and fails to differentiate from sibling 'get_conversation' which retrieves a single conversation.

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 like 'get_conversation'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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