What Data for This Category Looks Like
Core data for this category comes from official regulatory rule repositories, higher-level law databases, departmental policy document repositories, and administrative regulatory document filing systems. Update frequency is irregular. Documents processed in daily work include full drafts of regulatory documents, drafting explanations, draft legality review opinions, summary of solicited opinions, filing reports, and similar materials. Each single document usually contains complete policy clauses, drafting background explanations, multi-department feedback items, and a review conclusion framework. Data focuses on document compliance. It covers core information such as document subject, clause content, basis for formulation authority, and scope of solicited opinions. The main data forms are text items and logical associations. There are no fixed standardized numerical units.
Constraints Imposed by These Characteristics on the "Tool Calling and Plugins" Link
All data sources for this category are official authoritative systems. Tool calling must connect to publicly accessible and legal data sources. Access whitelists must be configured to ensure data security. Daily documents are mostly long texts with complex structures. Tool calling must support long context loading to ensure complete policy clauses and supporting materials can be fully processed. Data updates have no fixed cycle. Plugins must support on-demand refreshing of data source caches, only updating locally stored regulatory data when needed. The most time-consuming clause legality comparison link must trigger a dedicated regulatory matching plugin. Tool calling must have the ability to automatically identify compliance review needs to avoid missing key comparison nodes. This category focuses on legality review of abstract policy rules, different from compliance verification of individual administrative law enforcement cases. Tool calling must focus on formulation authority, procedures, and clause legality. Error consequences directly affect policy release and implementation. Tool calling must be equipped with failure retry and log retention mechanisms to ensure the review process is traceable.
How to Configure Settings
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | auto | Automatically match the tools required for the current review task, prioritize calling regulatory comparison and compliance verification plugins |
| Maximum context length | 8000–12000 characters | Adapt to the complete text length of regulatory document drafts and supporting materials, ensure all review-related content can be fully loaded |
functionCall | Triggered when regulatory comparison needs are detected | Only actively call tools when clause legality verification is required, avoid invalid calls that consume resources |
| Plugin call timeout | 600 seconds | Meet the time requirements of time-consuming operations such as regulatory repository queries and higher-level law comparisons |
| Number of results per plugin call | Top 10 | Obtain the most relevant higher-level law basis and policy references, avoid information overload that affects review efficiency |
| Plugin call quota | 500 calls/day | Adapt to the access restrictions of official regulatory repositories, avoid exceeding interface call limits |
Three Common Configuration Mistakes
- Symptom: An error indicating the path cannot be accessed is returned when calling the regulatory repository plugin. Cause: The data source access whitelist for the plugin is not configured, or the plugin call path is not bound to the legal domain name of the official regulatory repository.
- Symptom: The plugin does not respond after custom input parameters are passed. Cause: Fields are not passed in accordance with the input parameter format of FastGPT plugins, or required parameters required by the plugin are not declared in the configuration.
- Symptom: An empty result is returned when calling the ollama model, or the review application cannot be created via the OpenAPI interface. Cause: The model deployment address and authentication parameters are not configured correctly, or the application creation API interface provided by FastGPT is not called.
How to Confirm Configuration Is Complete
- Initiate a review test for a regulatory document draft. Check whether there is a successful record of regulatory repository queries in the tool call log to confirm that data source access is normal.
- Call the plugin with preset custom input parameters. Check whether the returned results include expected higher-level law comparison content to verify the validity of the input parameter configuration.
- Call the ollama model to process a segment of review text. Confirm that the returned result is not empty, and adjust the model configuration parameters to adapt to the current task requirements.
- Call the FastGPT OpenAPI interface to attempt to create a review application. Confirm that the interface returns a correct application ID to verify that the application creation process is normal.
The values provided above 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.