What the data for this category looks like
Core data for metal material processing comes from enterprise ERP systems, online quality inspection terminals, and production scheduling platforms. Data is updated per production batch. Each batch includes fields such as furnace number, metal grade, chemical composition (proportion of elements like carbon, silicon, manganese), mechanical performance indicators (tensile strength, yield strength, unit: MPa), rolling temperature, cooling process parameters, and other fields. Associated document data includes production process specifications, quality certificate templates, delivery note formats, and other materials. Fields must strictly match the standard format requirements of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals industry.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the tool calling and plugins workflow
Metal material processing has many data fields with strict unit requirements. Tool calling must accurately match field names and corresponding units to avoid parameter confusion. Data is dynamically updated per production batch, so plugins must support pulling the latest data by furnace number or batch number, and cannot rely on static caching. Tool calling must support the functionCall mode to bind exclusive fields and unit rules. Document drafting must combine production process parameters and industry standard templates, while automatically verifying field compliance to ensure compliance with the document format specifications of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals industry.
How to configure the settings
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | "auto" | Adapts to the tool calling needs of multiple metal material processing scenarios, automatically matching production data and template generation tools |
functionCall | "strict" | Strictly binds exclusive fields and unit rules for metal material processing, preventing the model from generating irrelevant content |
| Data pull timeout | 60 seconds | Production data is updated in real time per batch; a timeout will result in pulling production parameters from expired batches |
| Multi-source data linkage switch | Enabled | Document drafting requires calling both the production data interface and the industry standard template interface |
| Number of returned entries per tool call | First 3 entries | The volume of metal material processing data per batch is limited; too many returned entries will increase the context processing load |
| Document format verification rules | Configured according to the GB/T 222-2023 standard | Ensure that generated quality certificates and process documents comply with the national ferrous metal industry standard format |
Three common mistakes
- A tool call returns a 400 status code (no body). The cause is that the authentication parameters of the request header were not correctly configured in the plugin settings. The interface cannot complete identity verification and does not return a valid data body.
- The mechanical performance values in the generated document do not match the actual production data. The cause is that the strict verification mode of
functionCallwas not enabled. The model did not strictly bind the exclusive fields and unit rules for metal material processing, generating content that does not fit the scenario. - An error is triggered when connecting to an SSE interface with header authentication. The cause is that a custom authentication header was not added in the plugin settings, and the interface's identity verification process cannot be passed.
How to confirm the configuration is correct
- Initiate a tool call test, check if the returned production data fields include exclusive fields such as furnace number, grade, and mechanical performance, to confirm that the data pull logic is correct.
- Generate a simulated quality certificate, check if the format complies with the preset industry standards, to confirm that the document format verification rules are in effect.
- Simulate inputting incorrect unit parameters, check if the tool triggers verification interception, to confirm that the strict verification function of
functionCallworks properly. - View the plugin running logs, confirm that the interface call order during multi-source data linkage meets expectations, and confirm that the configured timeout period is in effect.
The values provided are common starting points and should be measured 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.