Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

MiniMax-M2.7 / M3: tool output not propagated between chained tool calls (design_workflow → validate_design)

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#19 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
25/100
Tipo di issue
Bug
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Tranquilla
Ambito
ai

Direzione di ricerca

Inizia con la configurazione di harness-test-bench e lo scenario smoke_all_tools_2, poi esamina la Task 2 (task_2_module_design) e le relative chiamate design_workflow → validate_design. Confronta MiniMax-M2.7/M3 con M2.5; il lavoro è completato quando la chiamata concatenata riceve l'esatto risultato di design_workflow in una richiesta validate_design valida secondo lo schema.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

Capability area: Agent harness / Tool use

What does M2.7 fail to do for you?
MiniMax-M2.7 fails to produce a valid JSON schema conforming to the validate_design tool definition when chaining from design_workflow.

What would "good" look like in M3?
validate_design receives a valid JSON schema that conforms to the tool's parameter definition — populated from the actual design_workflow result, not reconstructed from model reasoning.

Summary

MiniMax-M2.7 and MiniMax-M3 both fail to propagate tool output across a sequential tool call chain. When design_workflow returns a schema object, both models call the next tool (validate_design) with a schema that does not match the returned output — either reconstructed, incomplete, or structurally invalid against the tool definition.

MiniMax-M2.5 does not reproduce this behavior.

Environment

Field Value
Models affected MiniMax-M2.7, MiniMax-M3
Model passing MiniMax-M2.5
Endpoint OpenRouter
Tool calling Sequential 2-step chain
Observed 2026-06-17 (UTC+8)

Expected behavior

  1. design_workflow is called and returns a schema object
  2. The model reads the tool result
  3. validate_design is called with schema set to the exact object returned in step 1, conforming to the tool's JSON schema definition

Actual behavior

The model calls validate_design with a schema argument that does not match the design_workflow output. The model appears to reconstruct the schema from internal reasoning rather than reading the tool result, producing a value that violates the tool's parameter schema — missing required fields or structurally incorrect.

Benchmark eval output:

issues: ["Validated design is missing fields: project name, client, start date, deadline, owner, budget"]

Tool call sequence observed

1. design_workflow(...)
   → returns: { name, information: [{name, type, ai_hint}, ...], states: [...], ... }

2. validate_design({ schema: <does not match step 1 output, fails tool schema validation> })
   → missing required information fields

Steps to reproduce

We have an open-source MCP tool benchmark that reproduces this consistently:

Repo: https://github.com/Inistate/harness-test-bench

  1. Clone the repo and follow the setup instructions
  2. Run the smoke_all_tools_2 scenario against minimax/MiniMax-M2.7 or minimax/MiniMax-M3
  3. Inspect Task 2 (task_2_module_design) — validate_design will be called with a schema that does not conform to the tool's parameter definition
  4. Compare against a passing model (e.g. minimax/MiniMax-M2.5) running the same scenario

Questions

  1. Is this a known regression from M2.5?
  2. Does the model read tool results back into context between sequential calls, or is this not guaranteed?
  3. Is there a recommended pattern to ensure tool output is forwarded as-is rather than reconstructed?

Workaround

We currently exclude M2.7 and M3 from workflows requiring sequential tool output propagation. A fix at the model level would be preferable.

References

Reproduced across multiple runs in an independent MCP tool benchmark. M2.5 passed consistently. M2.7 scored 3/5 and M3 scored 2/5, with the T2 chain failing on every run for both models.

Lingua principale
Nessun dato sulla lingua
Stelle
490
Fork
59
Nessuna PR unita negli ultimi 30g

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M3

Tutte le issue di MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M3

Issue simili

Altre issue su AI Infra & Agents

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.