Skip to content

feat(minimax): add MiniMax-M3 to minimax and minimax-cn providers#1929

Closed
kapelame wants to merge 1 commit into
anomalyco:devfrom
kapelame:feat/minimax-add-m3-entry
Closed

feat(minimax): add MiniMax-M3 to minimax and minimax-cn providers#1929
kapelame wants to merge 1 commit into
anomalyco:devfrom
kapelame:feat/minimax-add-m3-entry

Conversation

@kapelame
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@kapelame kapelame commented Jun 1, 2026

Summary

Add the MiniMax M3 flagship to the minimax and minimax-cn provider catalogs.

  • New MiniMax-M3.toml in both providers/minimax/models/ and providers/minimax-cn/models/.
  • 512K context, 131,072 max output, native multimodal (input = ["text", "image"], attachment = true), reasoning, tool_call.
  • Pricing (USD per M tokens): input 0.60 / output 2.40 / cache_read 0.12 / cache_write 0.75.
  • Fields mirror the existing M2.7 entry.

Supersedes #1907 (closed; its head commit was rewritten). Note vs the other open M3 PRs: this one correctly marks M3 as multimodal (attachment=true, image input) and covers both the global (minimax) and CN (minimax-cn) providers.

Test

  • bun run validate passes (M3 appears in both providers' validated catalog).

MiniMax-M3 flagship:
- 512K context window (up from 204.8K on M2.7)
- 131,072 max output tokens
- Native multimodal input (text + image)
- Pricing: input $0.60 / output $2.40 / cache_read $0.12 / cache_write $0.75 per M
- Anthropic Messages + OpenAI chat compatible
@kapelame kapelame force-pushed the feat/minimax-add-m3-entry branch from e7c9b1a to d549d5c Compare June 1, 2026 09:11
@kapelame
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

kapelame commented Jun 2, 2026

Hi @thdxr, I’m from MiniMax and would like to help keep MiniMax model metadata up to date in models.dev.

I’m preparing a PR for MiniMax-M3 with official pricing, limits, capabilities, and provider docs. Is there any preferred convention for provider-owned updates, or should I just submit the TOML changes directly?

@rekram1-node
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Closing in favor of: #1940

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants