What the data for this category looks like
Data for declaration materials and case review for urban investment platforms comes primarily from internal project management systems, government service filing platforms, and financial accounting systems. Updates occur in batches when a single declaration material is uploaded, and monthly batch syncs run for daily case archiving. Two types of documents exist: declaration materials include structured multi-page content such as project approval applications, financial audit reports, and land use planning certificates. Case review records include form-based content such as correction notices, review opinions, and completion receipts. Fields include the unified social credit code, declaration project number, declaration amount (unit: ten thousand yuan), review node, and completion time, among others. Some fields require cross-verification with data from government platform filings.
What constraints these characteristics impose on tool calling and plugin workflows
Declaration materials often exceed 10,000 characters per file. Tool calling must support long text segmentation and field extraction. Case review requires cross-verification between internal data and government platform data, so at least two types of data source plugins must be called. Field formats are fixed with mandatory verification requirements, so tool calling must configure parameter verification logic. Workflows require unique identifiers to distinguish different review scenarios, and corresponding IDs must be carried during calls. Some scenarios require hiding redundant information from intermediate tool calls, so result simplification output must be configured.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | auto | Trigger automatic tool calls for multiple types of declaration materials, no manual tool specification required |
functionCall | Only specify review tools | Limit calls only to plugins related to declaration materials and case review, avoid interference from unrelated tools |
| Workflow unique identifier | Fixed UUID format string | Match unique identification requirements during calls, distinguish different review scenarios |
| API key type | Exclusive key bound to the corresponding workflow | Avoid permission confusion for cross-application calls, comply with security specifications |
| Timeout duration | 120–180 seconds | Adapt to the complete review processing time for a single declaration material, prevent process interruption due to timeout |
| Result output mode | Simplified mode | Only retain tool call results and final review conclusions, hide redundant information from intermediate steps |
This configuration aligns with the workflow and tool calling specifications for FastGPT v4.17.0.
Three Common Configuration Errors
- An "API key invalid" error is returned during calls. The cause is using a global general key not bound to the corresponding workflow, and failing to configure workflow permission binding as required.
- No tool call is triggered after the workflow runs, and extracted fields are empty. The cause is failing to correctly set the
toolChoiceparameter, or incorrect parameter value configuration causing tools to not be awakened. - Output results include input and output content from knowledge base searches. The cause is not enabling the result output simplification configuration, and redundant information from intermediate search steps is retained by default.
How to Verify a Correct Configuration
- Call the workflow API with the correct workflow UUID, check that the return status code is 200.
- View the FastGPT workflow run log, confirm that the
toolChoiceandfunctionCallparameters are correctly identified and trigger corresponding tool calls. - Upload a standard declaration material, verify that the tool call correctly extracts preset fields such as project number and declaration amount.
- Verify that the output results do not include input and output fields from knowledge base searches, and only retain tool call results and final review conclusions.
The configuration values provided here serve as common starting points, and should be assessed against your own specific samples and use cases.
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.