What data for this category looks like
The data for this category originates primarily from the food safety sampling and monitoring system, the national market supervision administration sampling results query system, the laboratory LIMS system, and the food producer and operator ledgers. Documents processed regularly include sampling plans, sampling slips, inspection reports, unqualified food verification and disposal reports, and risk control announcements. The data update frequency is monthly. Core fields cover sampling information, inspection items, result determination, disposal progress, and similar content. No non-standard statistical units are used, and the data structure maintains a fixed format in accordance with regulatory requirements.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the tool calling and plugins workflow
Monthly updated data sources require tool calling to adapt to periodic data pulling, to avoid frequent requests exceeding system interface limits. Differences across multiple document structures require plugins to support parsing and field extraction for different formats, ensuring that sampling location information from sampling slips and non-conforming item data from inspection reports can be accurately called. The core evidence relies on laboratory test reports, so tool calling must first verify the unique identifier of the report to prevent calling non-official test data. The usage scenario of grassroots supervision institutes requires plugin configurations to be lightweight, adapting to calling needs of low-computation terminals.
How to configure settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | auto | Adapts to the dynamic needs of multi-tool calling in sampling business, no need to manually specify a single tool, implemented via the plugin system of FastGPT v4.17.0 |
functionCall | Enabled | Requires precise calling of database or document parsing plugins to extract inspection report fields, ensuring the large model can obtain original data fragments |
| Single tool call timeout | 600 seconds | Inspection report parsing and database queries typically take a long time, to avoid mid-process interruptions leading to workflow failure |
| Tool call result cache duration | 2592000 seconds (30 days) | Matches the monthly data update frequency, reducing resource consumption from repeated requests |
| Batch tool call concurrency | First 3 entries | Adapts to the server resource limits of grassroots supervision institutes, avoiding interface queuing caused by excessive concurrency |
| Tool call authentication method | Bind exclusive API key | Sampling data belongs to sensitive regulatory information, strict authentication is required to avoid data leakage risks from universal keys |
Three common configuration errors
- After calling a file upload-related tool, the file index completion status cannot be obtained. The cause is that the tool callback verification logic is not configured, and the return fields for file processing are not monitored.
- After calling MySQL data, the large model does not reference the original database fragments. The cause is that the result traceability configuration of
functionCallis not enabled, and only the tool is called without binding the result reference rule. - Batch tool call timeout exceeds 1200 seconds. The cause is that a reasonable single call timeout is not set, and excessive concurrency leads to interface queuing timeout.
How to verify correct configuration
- Initiate a tool call for a sampling plan, check whether the returned results include complete core fields such as sampling locations and inspection items.
- Call the inspection report parsing plugin, verify whether the returned fields match the original data in the LIMS system.
- View the tool call logs to confirm that the authentication key verification passed, with no 401 or 403 status codes.
- Trigger a batch tool call, confirm that the execution duration meets the preset timeout configuration requirements.
The values given 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.