ghl-mcp-server

Ghl Create Custom Field

ghl_create_custom_field

Create custom fields for contacts or opportunities in GoHighLevel by specifying name, model, and data type to extend data collection.

Instructions

Create a custom field. WRITES to the live account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	display name of the field.
`model`	No	"contact" or "opportunity".	contact
`data_type`	No	one of TEXT, LARGE_TEXT, NUMERICAL, PHONE, MONETORY (sic, GHL spelling), CHECKBOX, SINGLE_OPTIONS, MULTIPLE_OPTIONS, DATE, TEXTBOX_LIST, FILE_UPLOAD, RADIO.	TEXT
`location_id`	No	GHL sub-account id (defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly warns that the tool 'WRITES to the live account,' which is useful, but it does not disclose idempotency, duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, or other side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose first and the live-write warning second. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and deeper behavioral context, making it adequate but not complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, and the schema already documents all four parameters with defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Create') and resource ('custom field'), and the resource name distinguishes it from siblings like ghl_create_custom_value, ghl_create_tag, and ghl_create_pipeline. The 'WRITES to the live account' warning reinforces that this is a real mutation, not a dry run.

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 choose this over ghl_update_custom_field, ghl_delete_custom_field, or ghl_create_custom_value. The description only restates the tool's purpose and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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