What this category of data looks like
Data for basic chemicals declaration materials and case review comes primarily from project proposals stored in internal enterprise approval systems, safety production license application documents, hazardous chemical registration archives, and approval cases circulated across departments. Data updates align with project timelines: bulk updates occur when a batch of declaration materials is submitted, and completed cases are bulk archived each month. The document structure includes three types of content: standardized declaration forms, supporting attachments (safety evaluation reports, environmental assessment documents, productivity calculation sheets), and approval circulation logs. Fields include project number, hazardous chemical category, designed productivity (unit: tons/year), approval node, submission date, approval duration (unit: working days), and some cases include confidential process parameter details.
What constraints these characteristics impose on tool calling and plugins
The multi-attachment structure of basic chemicals declaration materials and case files requires tool calling to support parallel parsing of multiple files, to avoid single-file processing timeouts. Fields include specialized chemical parameters, so tool calling must preconfigure national standard mapping rules for hazardous chemical categories to ensure the accuracy of extracted fields. The presence of confidential process parameters requires tool calling plugins to configure permission verification rules, so only authorized users can trigger calls that include sensitive fields. The large volume of bulk-archived case data requires the tool calling context window to adapt to long-text processing, to avoid truncation of critical approval records.
How to configure the settings
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | {"type":"function","function":{"name":"chemical_field_extract"}} | Matches the specialized field extraction needs of basic chemicals declaration materials, specifies calling the preconfigured chemical data verification function |
functionCall | Enabled | Forces tool calling, prevents the large language model from directly generating review results, and ensures the accuracy of extracted fields |
| Maximum files per single call | First 3 | Adapts to the characteristics of basic chemicals declaration materials with multiple attachments but small per-attachment size, avoids call timeouts |
| Tool calling timeout | 600 seconds | Adapts to the processing needs of long-text content such as approval circulation logs, prevents call interruptions due to overly long text |
| Permission verification switch | Enabled | Addresses scenarios where cases include confidential process parameters, restricts non-authorized users from triggering tool calling |
Three common configuration mistakes
- A
getaddrinfo ENOTFOUNDerror is returned when calling a tool. The cause is that the access address of the chemical data verification plugin was not correctly filled in the FastGPT plugin configuration, causing the system to fail to resolve the target domain name. - The tool calling process returns the error "400 Messages with role 'tool' must be a response to a preceding message". The cause is incorrect configuration of the tool calling context sequence: the tool role response content was sent without first sending the large language model's tool calling request as a preceding message.
- Significant differences appear between the review results returned by online conversations and API calls. The cause is that the
functionCallconfiguration was not enabled during API calls, so tool calling was not triggered, and only general large language model inference was used to generate results.
How to verify the configuration is correct
- Trigger tool calling for a single-attachment basic chemicals declaration material, check whether the returned results include the preconfigured chemical fields, to confirm that the
toolChoiceconfiguration is effective. - Upload a case file containing confidential parameters, verify that non-authorized users cannot trigger tool calling, to confirm that the permission verification switch configuration is effective.
- View the tool calling logs, confirm that the number of files processed in a single call does not exceed the set limit, to verify that the maximum files per single call configuration is effective.
- Wait for the tool calling to complete, check the elapsed time, confirm that it does not exceed the set timeout period, to verify that the tool calling timeout configuration is effective.
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.