Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
What This Category of Data Looks Like
The core data for this category comes from the national land and spatial planning one-map platform, project approval and supervision platform, land use status database, and ecological protection redline data. Updates occur on an irregular basis. Daily documents include land pre-examination and site selection opinions, construction land planning permits, construction engineering planning permits, redline drawings, and planning conditions. Structured documents include fields such as basic project information, site selection scope, land use scale, and control requirements. Vector drawings contain vector data such as coordinate points and boundary ranges. There is no fixed unified document format, and adaptation to multiple types of data source parsing is required.
What Constraints Do These Characteristics Impose on the Workflow Orchestration Link
Multi-source and irregularly updated data requires that the workflow include scheduled pull nodes to ensure the latest planning control and approval data is called each time the workflow runs. Diverse document types, including structured forms and unstructured vector drawings, require that the workflow be configured with different parsing nodes to handle text information and coordinate data separately. The most time-consuming link for this category is verifying project site selection and planning controls, reviewing land use scale and redline conflicts. This requires the workflow to split this link into multiple sub-nodes to complete verification step by step. This link occurs during the pre-construction project approval phase, and needs to be linked with pre-approval links such as development and reform, and housing and urban-rural development. This requires the workflow to be configured with cross-department data pull nodes. The consequences of errors are severe, which requires the workflow to add verification and rollback nodes to avoid incorrect data flowing into subsequent approval links.
Configuration Recommendations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Practice | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
variables | Split by approval link, include project ID, redline coordinates, control requirements | Land pre-examination and planning permit require verification of multi-dimensional project parameters. Splitting variables can accurately match corresponding data sources and avoid overly large search ranges |
nodeId | Split node IDs by data pull, compliance verification, document generation, and approval submission | Multi-link workflows need to accurately locate each execution node to ensure the process flows in approval order and avoid node confusion |
| Single search limit | Top 10 entries | The core data entries of this category are well-organized. Excessive results will increase manual verification burden. The top 10 entries can cover main compliance verification needs |
| Timeout period | 600 seconds | Need to wait for cross-platform pulling of approval supervision platform data and parsing vector drawings, reserve sufficient execution time |
| Knowledge base selection | Bind to the national land and spatial planning one-map database | The core compliance verification data of this category comes from this platform. Binding can accurately recall planning control clauses and redline restrictions |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Generated workflow documents do not match the project redline scope, and the returned result is empty or inconsistent with preset values. The cause is incorrect configuration of
variables, where the passed project parameters are not bound to the knowledge base retrieval link, resulting in retrieved data not matching the current project. - Timeout errors are displayed during debugging, with status code 504 returned. The cause is that a reasonable timeout period is not set. Cross-platform pulling of approval supervision platform data or parsing vector drawings does not reserve sufficient time, causing the process to interrupt.
- No return results in the tool call link, and the node status shows not executed. The cause is incorrect configuration of
nodeId, where the flow trigger logic between nodes is not bound in approval order, resulting in the process not proceeding as expected.
How to Verify Proper Configuration
- Manually pass test project ID and redline coordinate parameters, check whether the retrieval link recalls approval data and planning control clauses corresponding to the project.
- View workflow logs to confirm that each node corresponding to
nodeIdis executed in order, with no interruptions or error messages. - Trigger the document generation node, check whether the output document includes preset planning control clauses and basic project information.
- Simulate abnormal data input, check whether the compliance verification node triggers the interception logic and prompts abnormal information.
The values provided here are common starting points and should be evaluated against the reader's own samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-28.