What this category of data looks like
Coverage liability data primarily comes from product filing clauses in core insurance business systems, policy agreements entered during application, and parsed attachments such as diagnostic certificates and accident confirmation documents uploaded during the claim stage. Data updates are trigger-based: corresponding policy liability configurations and submitted supporting materials are only retrieved when a claim application is initiated. The document structure includes fields for unique liability code, liability name, payout ratio rules, deductible, excluded liability scope, and applicable insurance type. Field units include percentages, monetary yuan, standard date formats, and more.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the tool calling and plugins workflow
The trigger-based data retrieval requirement means tool calls must bind a unique policy ID as an input parameter. Generic cached data cannot be used; corresponding liability configurations must be pulled in real time after a claim application is initiated. Liability fields include dynamic rules that require calculation based on policy scenarios, so static results cannot be returned directly. For the link between parsed condition symptoms and liability matching, a terminology mapping plugin must be called to establish associations, and excluded liability scope must be verified, which increases the length of the tool calling chain. Additionally, since data comes from core business systems, tool calls must carry compliant authentication parameters to prevent unauthorized access.
How to Configure Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
MCP_CALL_TIMEOUT | 600 seconds | Coverage liability initial review requires pulling core system data and parsing claim attachments, with multiple workflow steps. The default timeout cannot cover the full process, so extending to 10 minutes adapts to actual calling requirements |
WORKFLOW_TRIGGER_POLICY | Trigger after policy submission | Coverage liability data is only generated after a claim application is submitted, and must bind a policy ID as an input parameter. Triggering per application ensures data timeliness and accuracy |
TOOL_INPUT_SCHEMA | Include policy ID, claim application ID, attachment hash | Coverage liability data relies on unique policy identifiers. The attachment hash must be included to ensure that parsed materials are the currently submitted supporting documents and avoid data confusion |
PARSE_FILE_MAX_SIZE | 10 MB | Claim attachments are mostly documents such as medical certificates and accident confirmation letters, with single file sizes usually within a reasonable range. Setting 10 MB covers most scenarios |
MCP_PLUGIN_WHITELIST | Medical terminology mapping, excluded liability verification, core system interface | Only three core tools are required for coverage liability initial review. Restricting the whitelist improves calling security and workflow efficiency |
WORKFLOW_EXECUTION_LOG_LEVEL | Used to troubleshoot abnormal logs during tool calling |
The parameter values provided on this page are common recommended starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material formats, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require case-by-case analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: Tool calls return a
504 Gateway Timeouterror, or workflow execution status shows timeout. Cause: TheMCP_CALL_TIMEOUTparameter was not adjusted. The default timeout period is too short to cover the full chain of core system data retrieval and attachment parsing. - Phenomenon: MCP tool nodes added to workflows cannot trigger calls, or prompt that no valid plugin is bound. Cause: The target MCP plugin was not added to the
MCP_PLUGIN_WHITELISTconfiguration item, or required parameters such as policy ID were not included in the workflow input. - Phenomenon: Calling an external interface to trigger a workflow returns an error stating the workflow ID does not exist. Cause: The application ID was mistakenly used as the
WORKFLOW_ID, and the correct unique identifier was not copied from the workflow management interface.
How to Confirm Successful Configuration
- Upload a simulated claim attachment in the workflow test interface, enter a valid policy ID to trigger execution, and verify that the returned liability configuration fields match the preset policy rules.
- Enter the workflow log panel, check whether the
MCP_CALL_TIMEOUTparameter takes effect, and whether the tool calling duration falls within the expected range. - Call the external interface to trigger the workflow, pass the correct
WORKFLOW_IDand policy parameters, and confirm that the interface returns a valid execution ID with no parameter errors. - View the authentication log to confirm that core system interface calls carry compliant authentication parameters, with no unauthorized interception records.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.