ghl_create_contactCreate a new contact in GoHighLevel by providing an email or phone number. Use this tool to add contacts directly to your live account.
Create a contact. WRITES to the live account. Provide at least an email or a phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| location_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags 'WRITES to the live account,' which warns of a mutating operation. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., duplicate handling, required authentication) or error conditions, but the explicit write warning is a valuable baseline. Since the description adds this warning, it earns a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the critical requirement. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and the key input requirement. It omits details about error handling or post-creation behavior, but the output schema can convey return structure. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is adequate completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It highlights the key constraint that at least an email or phone is required, which the schema does not enforce (required: 0). However, it does not explain first_name, last_name, or location_id, though these are intuitively named. The partial compensation yields a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (contact), and explicitly notes it writes to the live account. It differentiates from sibling tools, none of which create contacts, so an agent can easily identify this tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete usage requirement: 'Provide at least an email or a phone.' This is a clear condition for invoking the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, but given the sibling list has no overlapping contact-creation tool, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.