What this category's data looks like
Under the general higher education institution admissions enrollment filing category, material verification and discrepancy localization is a common step. The materials entering this function include three types: enrollment plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. Enrollment plans are published by batch and subject category, with fields including institution code, major code, planned number, and selected subject requirements; filing rules are updated by year and province, with fields including filing ratio, tie-breaking sort items, and adjustment notes; admission rosters are generated by round, with fields including candidate number, name, filing score, admitted major, signature, and receipt. The three types of materials come from different sources and have different update rhythms. When entering the tool calling node, each assumes the role of comparison baseline or object to be verified, and must be aligned item by item across the four dimensions of name, quantity, date, and signature.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call it, and the node executes it), outputting the tool call result (the input parameters and return in the call record). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | Check whether the institution code, major code, and planned number in the enrollment plan are consistent with the name and quantity of the corresponding records in the admission roster | Retrieve the input parameters and return in the tool call record, compare the enrollment plan and admission roster field by field, and mark items with inconsistent names or quantities |
| Filing rules | Check whether the date and version of the filing ratio, tie-breaking sort items, and adjustment notes in the filing rules are consistent with the rules used by the admission roster | Check the input parameters and return of the rule fields in the tool call record, and locate fields whose version is not synchronized or whose date does not match |
| Admission roster | Check whether the signature and receipt for the candidate number, name, filing score, and admitted major in the admission roster are complete | Search the signature and receipt fields in the tool call result, and list records missing a signature or missing a receipt |
| Tool calling node | Check whether the three items of tool description, parameter description, and whether required correspond to the business material fields | Open the tool node description field and parameter configuration, run a trial with a question missing a required parameter, and observe the behavior of toolChoice, functionCall, and toolChoice in the call record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The major name for the same candidate does not match between the enrollment plan and the admission roster. Cause: The two materials are generated by different steps, the major code and name have not been uniformly mapped, and literal comparison during tool calling exposes the discrepancy.
- Symptom: The filing rule version is not synchronized, and the admission roster is still executed according to the old ratio. Cause: After the rule material was updated, it was not written back to the roster generation node, and the date of the rule field in the tool call record is earlier than the roster date.
- Symptom: The admission roster is missing a signature or receipt, and the discrepancy list cannot be closed. Cause: The signature and receipt fields are empty in some records, and the field has no value in the tool call return result, requiring manual supplementary entry before verification.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this function: run a trial with a question missing a required parameter, check the input parameters and return in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description; at the same time, check the behavior of toolChoice, functionCall, and toolChoice in the node connections, and confirm that the diamond interface is connected to the target tool.
Business test: use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, check the name, quantity, date, and signature of that record in the enrollment plan, filing rules, and admission roster, and output a discrepancy list.
- Open the tool node description field, check whether the description can be understood on its own in terms of purpose, when it should be used, and what result it returns, and check the parameter description and whether required items one by one.
- On the canvas, check the diamond connections and node status, confirm that the tool calling node is connected to the target tool, and run a trial with a question missing a field to observe whether the model asks a follow-up question first rather than directly fabricating parameter values.