ghl_delete_custom_fieldDelete a custom field by its ID to remove it from GoHighLevel. Use this when a field is obsolete and its stored data is no longer needed.
Delete a custom field. DESTRUCTIVE: data stored in the field is lost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field_id | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and that data stored in the field is lost, which is critical for an agent to know before invoking the tool. It does not mention irreversibility or cascading effects, but the core destructive trait is clearly disclosed.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
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?
The tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and the description only covers the destructive nature. It omits guidance on when to use the tool, what location_id is for, and any prerequisites or side effects beyond data loss. Although an output schema exists, the description alone is not sufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool in all relevant contexts.
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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of field_id or location_id. The term 'custom field' weakly implies field_id refers to the custom field being deleted, but location_id is left entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('custom field'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_create_custom_field and ghl_list_custom_fields without needing to name them.
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 implies the tool is used to delete a custom field, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related operations like create or update. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.