Creates a GoHighLevel note and attaches it to one or more records, such as contacts, businesses, or custom objects, using the note body, user ID, and record relations.
Create Note Endpoint: POST /notes/ (Version header: v3; source: v3/objects-v3.json) OAuth scopes: notes.write
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body (schema carried verbatim from the official OpenAPI spec). | |
| locationId | Yes | Location Id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the required OAuth scope (notes.write) and the API version header, but it says nothing about what happens when a note is attached to multiple relations or what the response contains.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, then endpoint and scope. The 'source: v3/objects-v3.json' provenance is close to noise but costs little; nothing is buried.
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?
With a rich nested schema and full annotations, the essentials for invocation are present, and no output schema means return values need not be described. The gap is disambiguation: a tool whose payload supports attaching notes to arbitrary objects should say how it differs from the contact-specific note tool.
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 100%, including detailed descriptions for body, userId, recordId and objectKey, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.
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 'Create Note' plus the concrete endpoint POST /notes/, so the verb and resource are identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this generic object-note creation from sibling tools like ghl_contact_create_note or ghl_calendar_appointment_note_create, so an agent cannot tell from the text which one applies.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the contact-scoped or appointment-scoped note creators, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only context is an OAuth scope mention, which is a permission fact rather than a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.