GoHighLevel MCP Server

update_contact

Update a contact's details in GoHighLevel CRM by providing the contact ID and optionally modifying name, email, or phone.

Instructions

Update 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": "update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No	Email address
`phone`	No	Phone number
`last_name`	No	Last name
`contact_id`	Yes	Contact ID
`first_name`	No	First name
`response_format`	No	Response format	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a mutation operation, nor what effects it has (e.g., overwrites fields, requires permissions). With no annotations provided, the description fails to inform the agent about side effects or safety.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It is not efficiently informative; it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). It fails to explain return values, behavior, or how to use the response_format parameter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update a contact' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about which contact attributes can be updated or any scope, barely distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_contact beyond the verb.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_contact or search_contacts. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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