GoHighLevel MCP Server

send_sms

Deliver a text message to a contact in GoHighLevel CRM using the contact's unique ID and your message.

Instructions

Send SMS

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>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	SMS message (max 10 SMS segments)
`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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist and the description reveals no behavioral traits beyond the name. The agent gets no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or logging, which is critical for a data-modifying tool.

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?

At two words, the description is extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. It lacks structure and fails to provide any meaningful context beyond the name.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits important context like send confirmation, error handling, and number format, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 inline descriptions for all parameters, so the tool description need not add much. However, it adds nothing; a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the 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?

The description 'Send SMS' clearly identifies the action and resource, but it's minimal and does not differentiate from sibling tools like send_email. A score of 3 reflects adequate clarity without additional specificity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, when not to, or any alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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