ghl_create_custom_valueCreate a reusable custom value variable for a GoHighLevel sub-account, enabling dynamic references like {{custom_values.x}} in workflows and forms.
Create a custom value (a reusable sub-account variable such as {{custom_values.x}}). WRITES.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'WRITES,' which is redundant with the verb 'Create' and does not explain side effects, overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or the role of location_id. No contradiction exists because no annotations are present.
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 core statement 'Create a custom value' is front-loaded and concise, and the example adds useful context in a compact way. However, the trailing 'WRITES.' is redundant with 'Create' and does not earn its place in such a short description.
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 three-parameter create tool with no annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and meaningful behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value detail, but the remaining gaps are substantial.
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 the undocumented parameters name, value, and location_id. It does not define any of them, though the example '{{custom_values.x}}' hints at how the variable name might be referenced. Required parameters remain semantically unclear.
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?
Description identifies a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('custom value'), and explains what that resource is via the example '{{custom_values.x}}'. It differentiates from sibling ghl_create_custom_field by describing the value as a reusable sub-account variable rather than a field definition.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like ghl_create_custom_field or ghl_create_tag. The description does not discuss prerequisites, scenarios, or selection criteria. Given the large sibling set, this leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.