What the data for this category looks like
Declaration materials and file data for metal material processing mainly come from enterprise production ledgers, raw material quality inspection reports, processing technology cards, administrative approval filing documents, and industry supervision public data. The data update rhythm changes with production batches and declaration cycles. A single declaration file includes complete material qualifications, test results, and processing records. Documents are structured by file archiving, with core fields including furnace number, batch number, raw material grade, tensile strength (unit: MPa), yield strength (unit: MPa), elongation, processing thickness (unit: mm), and others. The number of associated documents per file changes according to actual production batches.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the "tool calling and plugins" workflow
Metal material processing declaration data contains a large number of professional test indicators and fixed archiving rules, which impose multiple constraints on the tool calling process. Accurate extraction of professional fields requires limiting the scope during tool calling to avoid generic Q&A missing core information such as tensile strength and furnace number. The archiving structure of files by batch and furnace number requires batch execution tools to process according to grouping rules to avoid mixing cross-batch data. A single review involves comparing multiple documents, so the context length of tool calling must adapt to the total character count of a single file to prevent exceeding processing limits. Variable statistics must be bound to specific file IDs to ensure that call times and status records for different declaration batches do not interfere with each other.
How to set up the configuration
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | auto | Adapts to multi-tool calling scenarios, automatically matches quality inspection data extraction and file comparison tools required for metal material review |
functionCall | Force trigger | Ensures that professional fields (such as tensile strength in MPa) are accurately extracted, avoiding core information being missed by generic Q&A |
| Batch execution tool | Group by furnace number, process 10–15 documents per run | Matches the document archiving structure of metal materials by batch, avoiding cross-batch data mixing |
| Variable update | Bind to the file ID field, cumulative call limit of 10 times | Prevents call count statistics from different declaration batches from being overwritten, ensuring accurate counting |
| Streaming output interval | Return once every 100–200 characters | Adapts to the viewing rhythm of engineer debugging and real-time review, avoiding overly long streaming content |
| Tool call timeout | 600 seconds | Adapts to the time required for complex calculations of professional test data and document comparison |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The streaming return result does not include thought process content, only displays the final review conclusion. Cause: The automatic thought output logic of
toolChoiceis not configured correctly, or the thought extraction rules for professional terms are not bound. - Phenomenon: The number of results returned by the batch execution tool does not match the number of declaration files, with duplicates or omissions. Cause: Batch tasks are not executed by furnace number grouping, resulting in mixed processing of cross-batch documents.
- Phenomenon: The variable update tool does not accumulate call times, and the statistical result is empty. Cause: Variables are not bound to specific file ID fields, resulting in counts from different declaration batches being overwritten.
How to confirm the configuration is correct
- Initiate a single-batch declaration material review test, check whether the streaming return result includes thought process and professional field extraction content, and confirm that the
toolChoiceandfunctionCallconfigurations are effective. - Upload 2 metal material test reports from the same furnace number, run the batch execution tool, and verify whether the returned result grouping matches the furnace number.
- Trigger a classification review operation, check whether the call count of the corresponding file ID in the variable panel accumulates as expected, and confirm that the variable binding rules are effective.
- Check the tool call logs to confirm that all calls point to the preset tools required for metal material review, and no irrelevant plugins are triggered.
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.