What data in this category looks like
Data for nuclear power operation declaration materials and file review primarily comes from nuclear power operation logging systems, nuclear safety regulatory declaration platforms, and archived file repositories. Data updates are triggered by individual declaration or file archiving actions, with no unified fixed cycle. Document structures include both structured fields and unstructured attachments. Structured fields include project ID, nuclear power unit number, declaration date, review status, and similar items. Unstructured attachments are mostly safety analysis reports in PDF or Word format. Fixed format requirements apply to fields: for example, nuclear power unit numbers follow the format of two letters plus four digits, and attachment size is measured in megabytes.
What constraints these characteristics impose on tool calling and plugins
The mixed structure of nuclear power declaration materials and files requires tool calling to support both structured field extraction and unstructured text parsing, with distinct calling logic configured for different content types. Fixed-format fields require format validation prior to tool calling, to prevent non-compliant materials from entering the review workflow. On-demand updated data sources limit the pull scope of tool calling: only archived or submitted declaration data can be accessed, and unsubmitted draft content cannot be pulled in real time. Large attachment files require tool calling to accommodate longer processing cycles, to avoid timeout interruptions.
How to configure the setup
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | auto | Adapts to the mixed structured and unstructured content type in nuclear power declaration materials, automatically selecting between tool calling and direct answering |
| Timeout duration | 600 seconds | Parsing and reviewing a single nuclear power declaration file takes a long time, so the default timeout limit must be extended |
| Field validation switch | Enabled | Nuclear power declaration fields have fixed format requirements; validation can filter non-compliant inputs in advance |
| Single tool call limit | First 8 items | Avoid exceeding the single-processing scope of nuclear power file review when calling too much data in a single call |
functionCall | Triggered by preset nuclear power fields | Call tools for format validation and extraction for fixed-format fields such as project number and nuclear power unit number |
| Context window size | 8000–12000 token | Adapts to the long document content of nuclear power declaration materials to ensure complete review information |
Three common mistakes
- Calling a non-logged-in application tool returns a permission error and empty fields. The cause is that the user identity transfer rule for the non-logged-in application is not configured, so the tool cannot obtain the current operating userid.
- The interface returns a 504 timeout error. The cause is that the tool call timeout duration is not adjusted; the parsing and review time of a single nuclear power declaration file exceeds the default limit.
- Batch submission of file reviews triggers call frequency limits and returns a 429 status code. The cause is that no queue current limiting rule for tool calls is set, and concurrent requests exceed the upper limit allowed by the interface.
How to confirm the configuration is complete
- Upload a standard nuclear power declaration material to trigger tool calling, and check whether the returned result contains correct fields such as nuclear power unit number and declaration date.
- Test the tool calling of the non-logged-in application to confirm that the user identity transfer is normal and there is no permission error.
- Simulate batch submission of 3 files and check whether tool calls are executed in queue order without triggering frequency limits.
- Adjust
toolChoicetoauto, test materials with mixed structured and unstructured content, and confirm that the tool automatically triggers format validation.
The values provided here are common starting points and should be evaluated against your own specific 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.