What Data Looks Like for This Category
Data sources for this category include regulatory and rule repositories, higher-level law databases, departmental policy document repositories, and administrative regulatory document filing systems. Update frequency is irregular. Daily processed documents include regulatory document drafts, drafting explanatory notes, legality review opinions, summary of solicited comments, and filing reports. Document fields include document number, drafting entity, text content, review basis, summary of opinion entries, and more. Units of measurement include number of documents, number of text articles, number of opinion entries, and more. There is no fixed unified format template, so corresponding fields must be identified based on document type.
Constraints on Tool Calling and Plugins
Dispersed data sources and irregular updates require tool calling to support on-demand pulling of different data sources, instead of using fixed scheduled full data synchronization. Diverse document structures and inconsistent fields require tools to automatically identify field mapping rules for different documents, and adapt to retrieval needs for different file types such as drafts and review opinions. The most time-consuming text comparison step requires retrieving large volumes of higher-level law content, so tool calling must first match high-relevance legal repository data sources. It must also limit returned content scope to avoid redundant information interfering with the review process. Error consequences directly relate to document filing and release, so tool calling must return clear basis sources and retrieval paths to ensure review results are traceable.
How to Configure
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
toolChoice | auto | Automatically select corresponding tools such as legal repositories and higher-level law databases to adapt to different review scenarios |
| Number of returns per single tool call | Top 10 entries | Cover core review bases, avoid excessive redundant information interfering with judgment |
functionCall | Enable parameter validation | Ensure parameters such as incoming file IDs and legal repository types are accurate and valid |
| Tool return content filtering | Only retain articles and bases related to legality | Exclude irrelevant content, focus on information related to authority, procedures, and text legality required for review |
| Tool call timeout | 600 seconds | Reserve sufficient time to complete full text comparison of higher-level law databases |
| Context truncation threshold | Calibrated based on actual testing | Adapt to context carrying needs for review files of different sizes |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: Tool calling returns content including non-legality review related industry updates or internal notices, resulting in redundant output. Cause: Tool return content filtering rules are not configured, and retrieval is not limited to data sources related to regulatory document formulation authority and text legality.
- Phenomenon: The review basis field returned after tool calling is empty, making it impossible to generate valid review opinions. Cause: Parameter validation for
functionCallis not enabled, resulting in incorrect format of the incoming target file ID, making the tool unable to locate the corresponding document. - Phenomenon: Tool calling continuously triggers timeout errors, with status code 504 shown in logs. Cause: The set tool call timeout is too short, making it impossible to complete comparison and retrieval of large-scale higher-level law texts.
How to Verify Successful Configuration
- Submit a test regulatory document draft, and verify that the data sources returned by tool calling cover specified sources such as regulatory and rule repositories and higher-level law databases.
- Check the tool calling logs to confirm that the tool type automatically matched by
toolChoicematches the current review scenario. - Verify that the content returned by the tool only includes articles related to legality review, with no redundant non-review related information.
- Simulate a high-load retrieval scenario to confirm that the configured tool call timeout meets the response requirements of the current scenario.
The values listed are common starting points and should be evaluated against appropriate test samples for the specific deployment context.
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.