GHL MCP Server

Send Invoice

ghl_send_invoice

Send an invoice to a contact via email from GoHighLevel CRM to automate billing and reduce manual follow-up.

Instructions

Send an invoice to the contact via email.

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": {
      "invoiceId": "<invoiceId>"
    },
    "name": "ghl_send_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoiceId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the 'via email' detail, which aligns with openWorldHint. However, it does not disclose side effects like marking the invoice as sent or whether repeated calls send duplicate emails.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose, with no unnecessary words or information.

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 one-parameter send action, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important context such as the need for the invoice to exist or the contact's email being available. Given the simplicity, it's acceptable but not enriched.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. It only implies that invoiceId identifies the invoice to send, which is already evident from the parameter name. No additional context is given on how to obtain the ID or any constraints.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action: sending an invoice via email. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_create_invoice (create vs send) and ghl_get_invoice (retrieve).

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist), or how it relates to ghl_create_invoice or ghl_void_invoice. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction.

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

Deploy Server