MiniMax M2.7

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'minimax:m2.7@0',
  settings: {
    temperature: 0.7,
    topP: 0.9,
    maxTokens: 4096
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'I am the quality director at FreshFork Foods, a frozen-food manufacturer. Prepare to advise our executive team on an undeclared-allergen incident involving GreenBasket private-label chicken dumplings.\n\nIncident record as of Tuesday, September 3, 1:00 p.m.:\n\n- The retail package declares wheat, soy, and egg but not sesame.\n- On August 12, our approved chili-oil supplier changed its formulation to include sesame oil without notifying us. Receiving records show that the new formulation was used in finished-product lots L240812 through L240829.\n- Those lots comprise 48,000 twelve-ounce bags. Approximately 13,000 remain under our control, 13,600 are at GreenBasket distribution centers or stores, and 21,400 have been sold to consumers through 118 stores in California, Nevada, and Arizona.\n- The product has a 12-month frozen shelf life. GreenBasket loyalty data can identify about 62% of purchasers, but some customers have opted out of marketing messages.\n- One consumer reported hives and wheezing after eating dumplings from lot L240824. She used prescribed epinephrine, was treated in an emergency department, and was discharged the same evening. We verified the UPC and lot from package photographs. No other illness reports are known.\n- An accredited laboratory detected sesame protein in three of five retained samples from implicated lots. Two nondetects came from a different production day. Results are qualitative, not concentration measurements.\n- Production records indicate the chili oil was added to every batch in the implicated lots, but dosing logs are incomplete for two shifts. Earlier lots used the previous sesame-free formulation.\n- The supplier has acknowledged the formulation change by email. Its updated specification lists sesame oil at 1.8% of the chili-oil blend.\n- No implicated product was exported. No food-service or institutional customers received it.\n- GreenBasket has paused replenishment but has not blocked checkout or removed stock. Its head of merchandising wants our recommendation by 4:00 p.m. today.\n- A targeted store withdrawal is estimated to cost $180,000. A consumer-level recall of all implicated lots is estimated to cost $1.3 million before litigation or reputational effects. GreenBasket may seek reimbursement under our supply agreement.\n- Our crisis communications agency can staff a hotline and draft customer notices within four hours. Our customer-service team can handle roughly 150 additional contacts per day without support.\n- Legal counsel has instructed us to preserve samples, specifications, production records, supplier communications, complaints, and decision logs. Counsel has not yet provided a regulatory conclusion.\n\nDo not assume facts beyond this record. Where regulatory interpretation is necessary, identify it as an issue for counsel rather than presenting it as settled law.'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'Before I draft the recommendation, please confirm the intended audience, the company’s risk posture, and the exact decision authority and deadline. Should the deliverable include customer communications and an operational timeline, or focus only on the recall decision?'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'The audience is the CEO, COO, general counsel, CFO, vice president of sales, and me. The CEO owns the decision and wants a recommendation by 3:30 p.m., leaving 30 minutes to align with GreenBasket. Our stated posture is to prioritize consumer safety and long-term retailer trust over short-term cost, while avoiding unsupported claims or unnecessarily broad action.\n\nWrite a standalone executive decision memorandum of approximately 1,200 to 1,600 words. Begin with a five-line executive summary and an explicit recommendation. Then include:\n\n1. A concise incident assessment that separates confirmed facts, reasonable inferences, and material unknowns.\n2. A comparison of three response options: no further action beyond holding our inventory, a trade-level withdrawal, and a consumer-level recall. Evaluate each against consumer safety, speed, regulatory exposure, retailer trust, operational feasibility, cost, and reputational risk.\n3. The reasoning behind the preferred scope, including whether all lots L240812 through L240829 should be included and why narrower alternatives are or are not defensible.\n4. A prioritized action plan divided into the next 2 hours, the following 24 hours, and days 2 through 7. Name an accountable executive function for each action.\n5. A communications framework covering GreenBasket, consumers, employees, the ingredient supplier, insurers, and relevant authorities. Provide message principles, not polished press-release copy.\n6. A short list of decisions the CEO must make today, material questions for counsel, and evidence that must be preserved or obtained.\n7. Clear criteria for escalating or narrowing the response as new evidence arrives.\n\nUse plain English, compact headings, and tables where they improve scanability. Be decisive but distinguish risk-based business judgment from legal conclusions. Do not invent statutes, agency classifications, test results, or contractual rights. Address the known medical event directly and explain how uncertainty should affect—not delay—the recommendation.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
            "settings": {
                "temperature": 0.7,
                "topP": 0.9,
                "maxTokens": 4096
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "I am the quality director at FreshFork Foods, a frozen-food manufacturer. Prepare to advise our executive team on an undeclared-allergen incident involving GreenBasket private-label chicken dumplings.\n\nIncident record as of Tuesday, September 3, 1:00 p.m.:\n\n- The retail package declares wheat, soy, and egg but not sesame.\n- On August 12, our approved chili-oil supplier changed its formulation to include sesame oil without notifying us. Receiving records show that the new formulation was used in finished-product lots L240812 through L240829.\n- Those lots comprise 48,000 twelve-ounce bags. Approximately 13,000 remain under our control, 13,600 are at GreenBasket distribution centers or stores, and 21,400 have been sold to consumers through 118 stores in California, Nevada, and Arizona.\n- The product has a 12-month frozen shelf life. GreenBasket loyalty data can identify about 62% of purchasers, but some customers have opted out of marketing messages.\n- One consumer reported hives and wheezing after eating dumplings from lot L240824. She used prescribed epinephrine, was treated in an emergency department, and was discharged the same evening. We verified the UPC and lot from package photographs. No other illness reports are known.\n- An accredited laboratory detected sesame protein in three of five retained samples from implicated lots. Two nondetects came from a different production day. Results are qualitative, not concentration measurements.\n- Production records indicate the chili oil was added to every batch in the implicated lots, but dosing logs are incomplete for two shifts. Earlier lots used the previous sesame-free formulation.\n- The supplier has acknowledged the formulation change by email. Its updated specification lists sesame oil at 1.8% of the chili-oil blend.\n- No implicated product was exported. No food-service or institutional customers received it.\n- GreenBasket has paused replenishment but has not blocked checkout or removed stock. Its head of merchandising wants our recommendation by 4:00 p.m. today.\n- A targeted store withdrawal is estimated to cost $180,000. A consumer-level recall of all implicated lots is estimated to cost $1.3 million before litigation or reputational effects. GreenBasket may seek reimbursement under our supply agreement.\n- Our crisis communications agency can staff a hotline and draft customer notices within four hours. Our customer-service team can handle roughly 150 additional contacts per day without support.\n- Legal counsel has instructed us to preserve samples, specifications, production records, supplier communications, complaints, and decision logs. Counsel has not yet provided a regulatory conclusion.\n\nDo not assume facts beyond this record. Where regulatory interpretation is necessary, identify it as an issue for counsel rather than presenting it as settled law."
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "Before I draft the recommendation, please confirm the intended audience, the company’s risk posture, and the exact decision authority and deadline. Should the deliverable include customer communications and an operational timeline, or focus only on the recall decision?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "The audience is the CEO, COO, general counsel, CFO, vice president of sales, and me. The CEO owns the decision and wants a recommendation by 3:30 p.m., leaving 30 minutes to align with GreenBasket. Our stated posture is to prioritize consumer safety and long-term retailer trust over short-term cost, while avoiding unsupported claims or unnecessarily broad action.\n\nWrite a standalone executive decision memorandum of approximately 1,200 to 1,600 words. Begin with a five-line executive summary and an explicit recommendation. Then include:\n\n1. A concise incident assessment that separates confirmed facts, reasonable inferences, and material unknowns.\n2. A comparison of three response options: no further action beyond holding our inventory, a trade-level withdrawal, and a consumer-level recall. Evaluate each against consumer safety, speed, regulatory exposure, retailer trust, operational feasibility, cost, and reputational risk.\n3. The reasoning behind the preferred scope, including whether all lots L240812 through L240829 should be included and why narrower alternatives are or are not defensible.\n4. A prioritized action plan divided into the next 2 hours, the following 24 hours, and days 2 through 7. Name an accountable executive function for each action.\n5. A communications framework covering GreenBasket, consumers, employees, the ingredient supplier, insurers, and relevant authorities. Provide message principles, not polished press-release copy.\n6. A short list of decisions the CEO must make today, material questions for counsel, and evidence that must be preserved or obtained.\n7. Clear criteria for escalating or narrowing the response as new evidence arrives.\n\nUse plain English, compact headings, and tables where they improve scanability. Be decisive but distinguish risk-based business judgment from legal conclusions. Do not invent statutes, agency classifications, test results, or contractual rights. Address the known medical event directly and explain how uncertainty should affect—not delay—the recommendation."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "e67f41d4-5e6a-411f-82a7-3d6661400f65",
      "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
      "settings": {
        "temperature": 0.7,
        "topP": 0.9,
        "maxTokens": 4096
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "I am the quality director at FreshFork Foods, a frozen-food manufacturer. Prepare to advise our executive team on an undeclared-allergen incident involving GreenBasket private-label chicken dumplings.\n\nIncident record as of Tuesday, September 3, 1:00 p.m.:\n\n- The retail package declares wheat, soy, and egg but not sesame.\n- On August 12, our approved chili-oil supplier changed its formulation to include sesame oil without notifying us. Receiving records show that the new formulation was used in finished-product lots L240812 through L240829.\n- Those lots comprise 48,000 twelve-ounce bags. Approximately 13,000 remain under our control, 13,600 are at GreenBasket distribution centers or stores, and 21,400 have been sold to consumers through 118 stores in California, Nevada, and Arizona.\n- The product has a 12-month frozen shelf life. GreenBasket loyalty data can identify about 62% of purchasers, but some customers have opted out of marketing messages.\n- One consumer reported hives and wheezing after eating dumplings from lot L240824. She used prescribed epinephrine, was treated in an emergency department, and was discharged the same evening. We verified the UPC and lot from package photographs. No other illness reports are known.\n- An accredited laboratory detected sesame protein in three of five retained samples from implicated lots. Two nondetects came from a different production day. Results are qualitative, not concentration measurements.\n- Production records indicate the chili oil was added to every batch in the implicated lots, but dosing logs are incomplete for two shifts. Earlier lots used the previous sesame-free formulation.\n- The supplier has acknowledged the formulation change by email. Its updated specification lists sesame oil at 1.8% of the chili-oil blend.\n- No implicated product was exported. No food-service or institutional customers received it.\n- GreenBasket has paused replenishment but has not blocked checkout or removed stock. Its head of merchandising wants our recommendation by 4:00 p.m. today.\n- A targeted store withdrawal is estimated to cost $180,000. A consumer-level recall of all implicated lots is estimated to cost $1.3 million before litigation or reputational effects. GreenBasket may seek reimbursement under our supply agreement.\n- Our crisis communications agency can staff a hotline and draft customer notices within four hours. Our customer-service team can handle roughly 150 additional contacts per day without support.\n- Legal counsel has instructed us to preserve samples, specifications, production records, supplier communications, complaints, and decision logs. Counsel has not yet provided a regulatory conclusion.\n\nDo not assume facts beyond this record. Where regulatory interpretation is necessary, identify it as an issue for counsel rather than presenting it as settled law."
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "Before I draft the recommendation, please confirm the intended audience, the company’s risk posture, and the exact decision authority and deadline. Should the deliverable include customer communications and an operational timeline, or focus only on the recall decision?"
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "The audience is the CEO, COO, general counsel, CFO, vice president of sales, and me. The CEO owns the decision and wants a recommendation by 3:30 p.m., leaving 30 minutes to align with GreenBasket. Our stated posture is to prioritize consumer safety and long-term retailer trust over short-term cost, while avoiding unsupported claims or unnecessarily broad action.\n\nWrite a standalone executive decision memorandum of approximately 1,200 to 1,600 words. Begin with a five-line executive summary and an explicit recommendation. Then include:\n\n1. A concise incident assessment that separates confirmed facts, reasonable inferences, and material unknowns.\n2. A comparison of three response options: no further action beyond holding our inventory, a trade-level withdrawal, and a consumer-level recall. Evaluate each against consumer safety, speed, regulatory exposure, retailer trust, operational feasibility, cost, and reputational risk.\n3. The reasoning behind the preferred scope, including whether all lots L240812 through L240829 should be included and why narrower alternatives are or are not defensible.\n4. A prioritized action plan divided into the next 2 hours, the following 24 hours, and days 2 through 7. Name an accountable executive function for each action.\n5. A communications framework covering GreenBasket, consumers, employees, the ingredient supplier, insurers, and relevant authorities. Provide message principles, not polished press-release copy.\n6. A short list of decisions the CEO must make today, material questions for counsel, and evidence that must be preserved or obtained.\n7. Clear criteria for escalating or narrowing the response as new evidence arrives.\n\nUse plain English, compact headings, and tables where they improve scanability. Be decisive but distinguish risk-based business judgment from legal conclusions. Do not invent statutes, agency classifications, test results, or contractual rights. Address the known medical event directly and explain how uncertainty should affect—not delay—the recommendation."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run minimax:m2.7@0 \
  settings.temperature=0.7 \
  settings.topP=0.9 \
  settings.maxTokens=4096 \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="I am the quality director at FreshFork Foods, a frozen-food manufacturer. Prepare to advise our executive team on an undeclared-allergen incident involving GreenBasket private-label chicken dumplings.

Incident record as of Tuesday, September 3, 1:00 p.m.:

- The retail package declares wheat, soy, and egg but not sesame.
- On August 12, our approved chili-oil supplier changed its formulation to include sesame oil without notifying us. Receiving records show that the new formulation was used in finished-product lots L240812 through L240829.
- Those lots comprise 48,000 twelve-ounce bags. Approximately 13,000 remain under our control, 13,600 are at GreenBasket distribution centers or stores, and 21,400 have been sold to consumers through 118 stores in California, Nevada, and Arizona.
- The product has a 12-month frozen shelf life. GreenBasket loyalty data can identify about 62% of purchasers, but some customers have opted out of marketing messages.
- One consumer reported hives and wheezing after eating dumplings from lot L240824. She used prescribed epinephrine, was treated in an emergency department, and was discharged the same evening. We verified the UPC and lot from package photographs. No other illness reports are known.
- An accredited laboratory detected sesame protein in three of five retained samples from implicated lots. Two nondetects came from a different production day. Results are qualitative, not concentration measurements.
- Production records indicate the chili oil was added to every batch in the implicated lots, but dosing logs are incomplete for two shifts. Earlier lots used the previous sesame-free formulation.
- The supplier has acknowledged the formulation change by email. Its updated specification lists sesame oil at 1.8% of the chili-oil blend.
- No implicated product was exported. No food-service or institutional customers received it.
- GreenBasket has paused replenishment but has not blocked checkout or removed stock. Its head of merchandising wants our recommendation by 4:00 p.m. today.
- A targeted store withdrawal is estimated to cost \$180,000. A consumer-level recall of all implicated lots is estimated to cost \$1.3 million before litigation or reputational effects. GreenBasket may seek reimbursement under our supply agreement.
- Our crisis communications agency can staff a hotline and draft customer notices within four hours. Our customer-service team can handle roughly 150 additional contacts per day without support.
- Legal counsel has instructed us to preserve samples, specifications, production records, supplier communications, complaints, and decision logs. Counsel has not yet provided a regulatory conclusion.

Do not assume facts beyond this record. Where regulatory interpretation is necessary, identify it as an issue for counsel rather than presenting it as settled law." \
  messages.1.role=assistant \
  messages.1.content="Before I draft the recommendation, please confirm the intended audience, the company’s risk posture, and the exact decision authority and deadline. Should the deliverable include customer communications and an operational timeline, or focus only on the recall decision?" \
  messages.2.role=user \
  messages.2.content="The audience is the CEO, COO, general counsel, CFO, vice president of sales, and me. The CEO owns the decision and wants a recommendation by 3:30 p.m., leaving 30 minutes to align with GreenBasket. Our stated posture is to prioritize consumer safety and long-term retailer trust over short-term cost, while avoiding unsupported claims or unnecessarily broad action.

Write a standalone executive decision memorandum of approximately 1,200 to 1,600 words. Begin with a five-line executive summary and an explicit recommendation. Then include:

1. A concise incident assessment that separates confirmed facts, reasonable inferences, and material unknowns.
2. A comparison of three response options: no further action beyond holding our inventory, a trade-level withdrawal, and a consumer-level recall. Evaluate each against consumer safety, speed, regulatory exposure, retailer trust, operational feasibility, cost, and reputational risk.
3. The reasoning behind the preferred scope, including whether all lots L240812 through L240829 should be included and why narrower alternatives are or are not defensible.
4. A prioritized action plan divided into the next 2 hours, the following 24 hours, and days 2 through 7. Name an accountable executive function for each action.
5. A communications framework covering GreenBasket, consumers, employees, the ingredient supplier, insurers, and relevant authorities. Provide message principles, not polished press-release copy.
6. A short list of decisions the CEO must make today, material questions for counsel, and evidence that must be preserved or obtained.
7. Clear criteria for escalating or narrowing the response as new evidence arrives.

Use plain English, compact headings, and tables where they improve scanability. Be decisive but distinguish risk-based business judgment from legal conclusions. Do not invent statutes, agency classifications, test results, or contractual rights. Address the known medical event directly and explain how uncertainty should affect—not delay—the recommendation."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "e67f41d4-5e6a-411f-82a7-3d6661400f65",
  "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
  "settings": {
    "temperature": 0.7,
    "topP": 0.9,
    "maxTokens": 4096
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "I am the quality director at FreshFork Foods, a frozen-food manufacturer. Prepare to advise our executive team on an undeclared-allergen incident involving GreenBasket private-label chicken dumplings.\n\nIncident record as of Tuesday, September 3, 1:00 p.m.:\n\n- The retail package declares wheat, soy, and egg but not sesame.\n- On August 12, our approved chili-oil supplier changed its formulation to include sesame oil without notifying us. Receiving records show that the new formulation was used in finished-product lots L240812 through L240829.\n- Those lots comprise 48,000 twelve-ounce bags. Approximately 13,000 remain under our control, 13,600 are at GreenBasket distribution centers or stores, and 21,400 have been sold to consumers through 118 stores in California, Nevada, and Arizona.\n- The product has a 12-month frozen shelf life. GreenBasket loyalty data can identify about 62% of purchasers, but some customers have opted out of marketing messages.\n- One consumer reported hives and wheezing after eating dumplings from lot L240824. She used prescribed epinephrine, was treated in an emergency department, and was discharged the same evening. We verified the UPC and lot from package photographs. No other illness reports are known.\n- An accredited laboratory detected sesame protein in three of five retained samples from implicated lots. Two nondetects came from a different production day. Results are qualitative, not concentration measurements.\n- Production records indicate the chili oil was added to every batch in the implicated lots, but dosing logs are incomplete for two shifts. Earlier lots used the previous sesame-free formulation.\n- The supplier has acknowledged the formulation change by email. Its updated specification lists sesame oil at 1.8% of the chili-oil blend.\n- No implicated product was exported. No food-service or institutional customers received it.\n- GreenBasket has paused replenishment but has not blocked checkout or removed stock. Its head of merchandising wants our recommendation by 4:00 p.m. today.\n- A targeted store withdrawal is estimated to cost $180,000. A consumer-level recall of all implicated lots is estimated to cost $1.3 million before litigation or reputational effects. GreenBasket may seek reimbursement under our supply agreement.\n- Our crisis communications agency can staff a hotline and draft customer notices within four hours. Our customer-service team can handle roughly 150 additional contacts per day without support.\n- Legal counsel has instructed us to preserve samples, specifications, production records, supplier communications, complaints, and decision logs. Counsel has not yet provided a regulatory conclusion.\n\nDo not assume facts beyond this record. Where regulatory interpretation is necessary, identify it as an issue for counsel rather than presenting it as settled law."
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "Before I draft the recommendation, please confirm the intended audience, the company’s risk posture, and the exact decision authority and deadline. Should the deliverable include customer communications and an operational timeline, or focus only on the recall decision?"
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "The audience is the CEO, COO, general counsel, CFO, vice president of sales, and me. The CEO owns the decision and wants a recommendation by 3:30 p.m., leaving 30 minutes to align with GreenBasket. Our stated posture is to prioritize consumer safety and long-term retailer trust over short-term cost, while avoiding unsupported claims or unnecessarily broad action.\n\nWrite a standalone executive decision memorandum of approximately 1,200 to 1,600 words. Begin with a five-line executive summary and an explicit recommendation. Then include:\n\n1. A concise incident assessment that separates confirmed facts, reasonable inferences, and material unknowns.\n2. A comparison of three response options: no further action beyond holding our inventory, a trade-level withdrawal, and a consumer-level recall. Evaluate each against consumer safety, speed, regulatory exposure, retailer trust, operational feasibility, cost, and reputational risk.\n3. The reasoning behind the preferred scope, including whether all lots L240812 through L240829 should be included and why narrower alternatives are or are not defensible.\n4. A prioritized action plan divided into the next 2 hours, the following 24 hours, and days 2 through 7. Name an accountable executive function for each action.\n5. A communications framework covering GreenBasket, consumers, employees, the ingredient supplier, insurers, and relevant authorities. Provide message principles, not polished press-release copy.\n6. A short list of decisions the CEO must make today, material questions for counsel, and evidence that must be preserved or obtained.\n7. Clear criteria for escalating or narrowing the response as new evidence arrives.\n\nUse plain English, compact headings, and tables where they improve scanability. Be decisive but distinguish risk-based business judgment from legal conclusions. Do not invent statutes, agency classifications, test results, or contractual rights. Address the known medical event directly and explain how uncertainty should affect—not delay—the recommendation."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'minimax:m2.7@0',
  settings: {
    temperature: 0.3,
    topP: 0.9,
    maxTokens: 2048
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'We operate a subscription billing platform in the EU. Since about 09:20 UTC, production payment webhooks have remained pending, but our dashboard and API are otherwise responsive. Can you help determine whether this is an incident on your side?'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'I can check the current production status of the webhook delivery service for the EU region.'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Yes, please check its current service status now.'
    }
  ],
  tools: [
    {
      type: 'function',
      name: 'get_service_status',
      description: 'Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.',
      schema: {}
    }
  ],
  toolChoice: {
    type: 'tool',
    name: 'get_service_status'
  }
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
            "settings": {
                "temperature": 0.3,
                "topP": 0.9,
                "maxTokens": 2048
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "We operate a subscription billing platform in the EU. Since about 09:20 UTC, production payment webhooks have remained pending, but our dashboard and API are otherwise responsive. Can you help determine whether this is an incident on your side?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "I can check the current production status of the webhook delivery service for the EU region."
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Yes, please check its current service status now."
                }
            ],
            "tools": [
                {
                    "type": "function",
                    "name": "get_service_status",
                    "description": "Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.",
                    "schema": {}
                }
            ],
            "toolChoice": {
                "type": "tool",
                "name": "get_service_status"
            }
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "5c0aad09-effc-4a98-bd22-f8f52c5bf57c",
      "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
      "settings": {
        "temperature": 0.3,
        "topP": 0.9,
        "maxTokens": 2048
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "We operate a subscription billing platform in the EU. Since about 09:20 UTC, production payment webhooks have remained pending, but our dashboard and API are otherwise responsive. Can you help determine whether this is an incident on your side?"
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "I can check the current production status of the webhook delivery service for the EU region."
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Yes, please check its current service status now."
        }
      ],
      "tools": [
        {
          "type": "function",
          "name": "get_service_status",
          "description": "Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.",
          "schema": {}
        }
      ],
      "toolChoice": {
        "type": "tool",
        "name": "get_service_status"
      }
    }
  ]'

runware run minimax:m2.7@0 \
  settings.temperature=0.3 \
  settings.topP=0.9 \
  settings.maxTokens=2048 \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="We operate a subscription billing platform in the EU. Since about 09:20 UTC, production payment webhooks have remained pending, but our dashboard and API are otherwise responsive. Can you help determine whether this is an incident on your side?" \
  messages.1.role=assistant \
  messages.1.content="I can check the current production status of the webhook delivery service for the EU region." \
  messages.2.role=user \
  messages.2.content="Yes, please check its current service status now." \
  tools.0.type=function \
  tools.0.name=get_service_status \
  tools.0.description="Retrieves the current operational status of the application service." \
  toolChoice.type=tool \
  toolChoice.name=get_service_status

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "5c0aad09-effc-4a98-bd22-f8f52c5bf57c",
  "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
  "settings": {
    "temperature": 0.3,
    "topP": 0.9,
    "maxTokens": 2048
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "We operate a subscription billing platform in the EU. Since about 09:20 UTC, production payment webhooks have remained pending, but our dashboard and API are otherwise responsive. Can you help determine whether this is an incident on your side?"
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "I can check the current production status of the webhook delivery service for the EU region."
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Yes, please check its current service status now."
    }
  ],
  "tools": [
    {
      "type": "function",
      "name": "get_service_status",
      "description": "Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.",
      "schema": {}
    }
  ],
  "toolChoice": {
    "type": "tool",
    "name": "get_service_status"
  }
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'minimax:m2.7@0',
  settings: {
    temperature: 0.7,
    topP: 0.9,
    maxTokens: 4096
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'I am preparing a capital grant application for the nonprofit Marlowe Civic Arts Trust. Draft the core narrative for restoration of the Rialto Theatre, a 1931 Art Deco venue in Marlowe, Ohio. Before writing, identify any essential gaps that would prevent a credible application.\n\nUse only the facts below; do not invent quotations, statistics, partnerships, or regulatory claims.\n\nORGANIZATION\n- Marlowe Civic Arts Trust is a 501(c)(3) formed in 2016 to preserve the Rialto and operate it as an affordable regional performing-arts venue.\n- The Trust owns the building without a mortgage.\n- Governance: nine-member volunteer board; standing finance, facilities, and programming committees.\n- Staff: one full-time executive director, one full-time venue manager, and eight part-time event employees.\n- FY2025 operating revenue: $684,000. Sources: ticket sales 41%, rentals 19%, individual giving 18%, municipal support 12%, concessions 6%, other 4%.\n- FY2025 ended with a $22,000 operating surplus. Board-designated cash reserve: $146,000.\n- The Trust has completed two prior capital projects: a $310,000 roof replacement in 2019 and a $185,000 fire-alarm and emergency-lighting upgrade in 2022. Both were completed within budget; the roof project finished six weeks late because matching slate was unavailable.\n\nBUILDING AND SIGNIFICANCE\n- The 812-seat Rialto Theatre opened in 1931 and retains its original glazed-terracotta facade, terrazzo lobby floor, geometric plasterwork, auditorium light fixtures, and painted proscenium.\n- It is the only surviving purpose-built movie palace in Harlan County.\n- It was listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.\n- The theater closed commercially in 1998. The Trust acquired it in 2017 and reopened the auditorium in 2020 after basic life-safety work.\n- Current uses include concerts, school performances, film screenings, civic meetings, touring theater, and subsidized rentals for local nonprofits.\n- FY2025 activity: 118 public events, 46,300 admissions, 17 school performances serving approximately 6,100 students, and 22 subsidized nonprofit rentals.\n\nCAPITAL NEED\n- Water infiltration at the parapet and failed mortar joints is damaging interior plaster near the east auditorium wall.\n- Several glazed-terracotta units are cracked or displaced. Temporary netting protects the sidewalk beneath the marquee return.\n- The original steel windows serving the second-floor rehearsal rooms have corrosion, failed glazing compound, and air leakage.\n- An accessibility review found that wheelchair users can enter the auditorium but cannot independently reach the stage or second-floor rehearsal rooms.\n- The existing stage electrical distribution dates from a 1974 renovation. The project electrician documented overheating at two disconnects and insufficient capacity for typical touring productions.\n- The Trust has isolated the affected circuits and reduced allowable production loads. No fire or injury has occurred.\n\nPROPOSED 18-MONTH PROJECT\n1. Repoint masonry using mortar matched through laboratory analysis.\n2. Repair or selectively replace damaged glazed terracotta; retain sound historic units.\n3. Rebuild parapet flashing and repair associated roof-edge conditions.\n4. Restore 14 original steel windows with new glazing and weather seals.\n5. Install a code-compliant interior platform lift connecting the auditorium, stage, and second-floor rehearsal level. Final placement was selected to avoid removing ornamental plaster.\n6. Replace stage electrical distribution, disconnects, and company switches; retain nonhazardous historic switch plates for interpretation.\n7. Conserve water-damaged ornamental plaster and repaint repaired areas based on finish analysis.\n8. Commission the electrical and lift systems, complete closeout documentation, and update the cyclical maintenance plan.\n\nPROJECT TEAM AND READINESS\n- Preservation architect: Bell & Orton Architects; completed a conditions assessment and 60% construction documents.\n- Structural engineer: Keene Structural Studio.\n- Electrical engineer: Northline MEP.\n- Terracotta conservator: Alcott Materials Conservation.\n- Owner\'s representative: CivicBuild Partners.\n- The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the design-development package and requested two refinements: preserve additional window hardware where feasible and distinguish replacement terracotta units with discreet date stamps. The design team accepted both.\n- Local planning approval has been issued. Building-permit review begins after 90% documents.\n- Environmental testing found lead paint in limited backstage locations; abatement is included in the scope. No asbestos was detected in sampled project areas.\n\nBUDGET AND FUNDING\n- Construction: $1,640,000\n- Design and engineering: $214,000\n- Conservation testing and monitoring: $76,000\n- Owner\'s representation: $92,000\n- Permits, insurance, and testing: $58,000\n- Contingency: $220,000\n- Total: $2,300,000\n- Confirmed: $650,000 city capital appropriation; $400,000 state cultural-facilities award; $275,000 private foundation grant; $225,000 board-restricted capital funds.\n- Pending: $500,000 requested from this grantmaker; $250,000 local capital campaign.\n- The city and state awards reimburse eligible expenses. The Trust has secured a $500,000 line of credit to manage timing, but intends to minimize borrowing costs.\n\nSCHEDULE\n- Final design and permits: January-April 2027\n- Bidding and contractor selection: May-June 2027\n- Construction mobilization: July 2027\n- Exterior and window work: July-November 2027\n- Interior accessibility and electrical work: September 2027-February 2028\n- Plaster conservation: January-March 2028\n- Commissioning and closeout: April-June 2028\n- The theater will close for eight weeks during electrical cutover and lift installation. Other work will be phased around programming.\n\nCOMMUNITY AND OUTCOMES\n- The county population is approximately 61,000.\n- The Trust offers $5 student tickets for designated events and waives rental fees for the annual county high-school arts showcase.\n- Three local disability advocates participated in review meetings and supported the platform-lift location because it permits independent stage access while limiting loss of historic fabric. Do not describe them as formal project partners.\n- Expected outcomes: eliminate active envelope leaks in the project area; return all 14 windows to operable, weather-resistant condition; provide an accessible route to the stage and rehearsal level; replace hazardous and capacity-limited stage electrical equipment; conserve approximately 1,850 square feet of ornamental plaster; reduce event cancellations and technical workarounds.\n- The Trust expects to increase touring productions from 9 annually to 14 within two years after completion. This is a projection, not a commitment.\n\nLONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP\n- The facilities committee performs quarterly building walks.\n- The Trust budgets $38,000 annually for routine building maintenance and plans to increase this by $12,000 after the project.\n- A building reserve receives 3% of unrestricted annual revenue.\n- Bell & Orton will provide a revised 10-year maintenance schedule at closeout.\n- Staff will log facade, roof-edge, window, lift, electrical, and plaster inspections in a shared maintenance register.\n\nThe grantmaker scores significance, urgency, preservation approach, public benefit, feasibility, financial sustainability, and measurable outcomes. The narrative limit is 1,500 words.'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'The record is strong enough to develop a credible narrative, but I would want four points resolved before producing submission-ready copy:\n\n1. What exact project title and grant program name should appear in the narrative?\n2. Should the $500,000 request be framed as closing the final confirmed funding gap even though the $250,000 local campaign remains pending, or is the campaign expected to be completed before an award decision?\n3. Is the contingency intentionally $220,000, and may I describe it as approximately 10% of pre-contingency project costs?\n4. Does the grantmaker require a separate section on risks, or should schedule, cash-flow, permitting, hazardous-material, and construction-phasing risks be integrated under feasibility?\n\nI can otherwise organize the response directly around the seven scoring criteria, clearly distinguish documented conditions from projections, explain preservation tradeoffs, and reconcile the project budget and funding plan.'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Use the project title “Rialto Theatre Envelope, Access, and Stage Renewal” and refer to the funder generically as “the grantmaker.” The local campaign is scheduled to conclude by March 2027, before the anticipated award decision in May 2027; $110,000 of the $250,000 campaign goal has already been pledged, but those pledges are not included in the confirmed-funding list above. Present the grant as the essential final institutional commitment that will allow the Trust to proceed without reducing scope. Explain the remaining campaign balance accurately rather than calling the whole project fully funded.\n\nYes, the $220,000 contingency is intentional. You may describe it as approximately 10.6% of the $2.08 million in pre-contingency costs. Integrate risks and mitigations under feasibility rather than creating a separate risk section.\n\nNow write the finished narrative in 1,300-1,500 words. Use informative headings aligned to the scoring criteria, but make the document read as a cohesive case for support rather than seven disconnected answers. Open with a concise executive case, then cover significance and urgency, preservation approach, public benefit and accessibility, readiness and feasibility, budget and financial sustainability, measurable outcomes, and long-term stewardship. Reconcile every funding figure, explain the reimbursement-related cash-flow plan, and address the eight-week closure without minimizing disruption. Distinguish current facts, confirmed funds, pending funds, and projections. Use confident, plain professional language; avoid inflated claims, generic praise, unsupported economic-impact language, and invented facts. End with a short conclusion stating what the grant will make possible.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
            "settings": {
                "temperature": 0.7,
                "topP": 0.9,
                "maxTokens": 4096
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "I am preparing a capital grant application for the nonprofit Marlowe Civic Arts Trust. Draft the core narrative for restoration of the Rialto Theatre, a 1931 Art Deco venue in Marlowe, Ohio. Before writing, identify any essential gaps that would prevent a credible application.\n\nUse only the facts below; do not invent quotations, statistics, partnerships, or regulatory claims.\n\nORGANIZATION\n- Marlowe Civic Arts Trust is a 501(c)(3) formed in 2016 to preserve the Rialto and operate it as an affordable regional performing-arts venue.\n- The Trust owns the building without a mortgage.\n- Governance: nine-member volunteer board; standing finance, facilities, and programming committees.\n- Staff: one full-time executive director, one full-time venue manager, and eight part-time event employees.\n- FY2025 operating revenue: $684,000. Sources: ticket sales 41%, rentals 19%, individual giving 18%, municipal support 12%, concessions 6%, other 4%.\n- FY2025 ended with a $22,000 operating surplus. Board-designated cash reserve: $146,000.\n- The Trust has completed two prior capital projects: a $310,000 roof replacement in 2019 and a $185,000 fire-alarm and emergency-lighting upgrade in 2022. Both were completed within budget; the roof project finished six weeks late because matching slate was unavailable.\n\nBUILDING AND SIGNIFICANCE\n- The 812-seat Rialto Theatre opened in 1931 and retains its original glazed-terracotta facade, terrazzo lobby floor, geometric plasterwork, auditorium light fixtures, and painted proscenium.\n- It is the only surviving purpose-built movie palace in Harlan County.\n- It was listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.\n- The theater closed commercially in 1998. The Trust acquired it in 2017 and reopened the auditorium in 2020 after basic life-safety work.\n- Current uses include concerts, school performances, film screenings, civic meetings, touring theater, and subsidized rentals for local nonprofits.\n- FY2025 activity: 118 public events, 46,300 admissions, 17 school performances serving approximately 6,100 students, and 22 subsidized nonprofit rentals.\n\nCAPITAL NEED\n- Water infiltration at the parapet and failed mortar joints is damaging interior plaster near the east auditorium wall.\n- Several glazed-terracotta units are cracked or displaced. Temporary netting protects the sidewalk beneath the marquee return.\n- The original steel windows serving the second-floor rehearsal rooms have corrosion, failed glazing compound, and air leakage.\n- An accessibility review found that wheelchair users can enter the auditorium but cannot independently reach the stage or second-floor rehearsal rooms.\n- The existing stage electrical distribution dates from a 1974 renovation. The project electrician documented overheating at two disconnects and insufficient capacity for typical touring productions.\n- The Trust has isolated the affected circuits and reduced allowable production loads. No fire or injury has occurred.\n\nPROPOSED 18-MONTH PROJECT\n1. Repoint masonry using mortar matched through laboratory analysis.\n2. Repair or selectively replace damaged glazed terracotta; retain sound historic units.\n3. Rebuild parapet flashing and repair associated roof-edge conditions.\n4. Restore 14 original steel windows with new glazing and weather seals.\n5. Install a code-compliant interior platform lift connecting the auditorium, stage, and second-floor rehearsal level. Final placement was selected to avoid removing ornamental plaster.\n6. Replace stage electrical distribution, disconnects, and company switches; retain nonhazardous historic switch plates for interpretation.\n7. Conserve water-damaged ornamental plaster and repaint repaired areas based on finish analysis.\n8. Commission the electrical and lift systems, complete closeout documentation, and update the cyclical maintenance plan.\n\nPROJECT TEAM AND READINESS\n- Preservation architect: Bell & Orton Architects; completed a conditions assessment and 60% construction documents.\n- Structural engineer: Keene Structural Studio.\n- Electrical engineer: Northline MEP.\n- Terracotta conservator: Alcott Materials Conservation.\n- Owner's representative: CivicBuild Partners.\n- The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the design-development package and requested two refinements: preserve additional window hardware where feasible and distinguish replacement terracotta units with discreet date stamps. The design team accepted both.\n- Local planning approval has been issued. Building-permit review begins after 90% documents.\n- Environmental testing found lead paint in limited backstage locations; abatement is included in the scope. No asbestos was detected in sampled project areas.\n\nBUDGET AND FUNDING\n- Construction: $1,640,000\n- Design and engineering: $214,000\n- Conservation testing and monitoring: $76,000\n- Owner's representation: $92,000\n- Permits, insurance, and testing: $58,000\n- Contingency: $220,000\n- Total: $2,300,000\n- Confirmed: $650,000 city capital appropriation; $400,000 state cultural-facilities award; $275,000 private foundation grant; $225,000 board-restricted capital funds.\n- Pending: $500,000 requested from this grantmaker; $250,000 local capital campaign.\n- The city and state awards reimburse eligible expenses. The Trust has secured a $500,000 line of credit to manage timing, but intends to minimize borrowing costs.\n\nSCHEDULE\n- Final design and permits: January-April 2027\n- Bidding and contractor selection: May-June 2027\n- Construction mobilization: July 2027\n- Exterior and window work: July-November 2027\n- Interior accessibility and electrical work: September 2027-February 2028\n- Plaster conservation: January-March 2028\n- Commissioning and closeout: April-June 2028\n- The theater will close for eight weeks during electrical cutover and lift installation. Other work will be phased around programming.\n\nCOMMUNITY AND OUTCOMES\n- The county population is approximately 61,000.\n- The Trust offers $5 student tickets for designated events and waives rental fees for the annual county high-school arts showcase.\n- Three local disability advocates participated in review meetings and supported the platform-lift location because it permits independent stage access while limiting loss of historic fabric. Do not describe them as formal project partners.\n- Expected outcomes: eliminate active envelope leaks in the project area; return all 14 windows to operable, weather-resistant condition; provide an accessible route to the stage and rehearsal level; replace hazardous and capacity-limited stage electrical equipment; conserve approximately 1,850 square feet of ornamental plaster; reduce event cancellations and technical workarounds.\n- The Trust expects to increase touring productions from 9 annually to 14 within two years after completion. This is a projection, not a commitment.\n\nLONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP\n- The facilities committee performs quarterly building walks.\n- The Trust budgets $38,000 annually for routine building maintenance and plans to increase this by $12,000 after the project.\n- A building reserve receives 3% of unrestricted annual revenue.\n- Bell & Orton will provide a revised 10-year maintenance schedule at closeout.\n- Staff will log facade, roof-edge, window, lift, electrical, and plaster inspections in a shared maintenance register.\n\nThe grantmaker scores significance, urgency, preservation approach, public benefit, feasibility, financial sustainability, and measurable outcomes. The narrative limit is 1,500 words."
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "The record is strong enough to develop a credible narrative, but I would want four points resolved before producing submission-ready copy:\n\n1. What exact project title and grant program name should appear in the narrative?\n2. Should the $500,000 request be framed as closing the final confirmed funding gap even though the $250,000 local campaign remains pending, or is the campaign expected to be completed before an award decision?\n3. Is the contingency intentionally $220,000, and may I describe it as approximately 10% of pre-contingency project costs?\n4. Does the grantmaker require a separate section on risks, or should schedule, cash-flow, permitting, hazardous-material, and construction-phasing risks be integrated under feasibility?\n\nI can otherwise organize the response directly around the seven scoring criteria, clearly distinguish documented conditions from projections, explain preservation tradeoffs, and reconcile the project budget and funding plan."
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Use the project title “Rialto Theatre Envelope, Access, and Stage Renewal” and refer to the funder generically as “the grantmaker.” The local campaign is scheduled to conclude by March 2027, before the anticipated award decision in May 2027; $110,000 of the $250,000 campaign goal has already been pledged, but those pledges are not included in the confirmed-funding list above. Present the grant as the essential final institutional commitment that will allow the Trust to proceed without reducing scope. Explain the remaining campaign balance accurately rather than calling the whole project fully funded.\n\nYes, the $220,000 contingency is intentional. You may describe it as approximately 10.6% of the $2.08 million in pre-contingency costs. Integrate risks and mitigations under feasibility rather than creating a separate risk section.\n\nNow write the finished narrative in 1,300-1,500 words. Use informative headings aligned to the scoring criteria, but make the document read as a cohesive case for support rather than seven disconnected answers. Open with a concise executive case, then cover significance and urgency, preservation approach, public benefit and accessibility, readiness and feasibility, budget and financial sustainability, measurable outcomes, and long-term stewardship. Reconcile every funding figure, explain the reimbursement-related cash-flow plan, and address the eight-week closure without minimizing disruption. Distinguish current facts, confirmed funds, pending funds, and projections. Use confident, plain professional language; avoid inflated claims, generic praise, unsupported economic-impact language, and invented facts. End with a short conclusion stating what the grant will make possible."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "3da68bf5-5926-4aa0-9b4d-f0980fbc59a4",
      "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
      "settings": {
        "temperature": 0.7,
        "topP": 0.9,
        "maxTokens": 4096
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "I am preparing a capital grant application for the nonprofit Marlowe Civic Arts Trust. Draft the core narrative for restoration of the Rialto Theatre, a 1931 Art Deco venue in Marlowe, Ohio. Before writing, identify any essential gaps that would prevent a credible application.\n\nUse only the facts below; do not invent quotations, statistics, partnerships, or regulatory claims.\n\nORGANIZATION\n- Marlowe Civic Arts Trust is a 501(c)(3) formed in 2016 to preserve the Rialto and operate it as an affordable regional performing-arts venue.\n- The Trust owns the building without a mortgage.\n- Governance: nine-member volunteer board; standing finance, facilities, and programming committees.\n- Staff: one full-time executive director, one full-time venue manager, and eight part-time event employees.\n- FY2025 operating revenue: $684,000. Sources: ticket sales 41%, rentals 19%, individual giving 18%, municipal support 12%, concessions 6%, other 4%.\n- FY2025 ended with a $22,000 operating surplus. Board-designated cash reserve: $146,000.\n- The Trust has completed two prior capital projects: a $310,000 roof replacement in 2019 and a $185,000 fire-alarm and emergency-lighting upgrade in 2022. Both were completed within budget; the roof project finished six weeks late because matching slate was unavailable.\n\nBUILDING AND SIGNIFICANCE\n- The 812-seat Rialto Theatre opened in 1931 and retains its original glazed-terracotta facade, terrazzo lobby floor, geometric plasterwork, auditorium light fixtures, and painted proscenium.\n- It is the only surviving purpose-built movie palace in Harlan County.\n- It was listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.\n- The theater closed commercially in 1998. The Trust acquired it in 2017 and reopened the auditorium in 2020 after basic life-safety work.\n- Current uses include concerts, school performances, film screenings, civic meetings, touring theater, and subsidized rentals for local nonprofits.\n- FY2025 activity: 118 public events, 46,300 admissions, 17 school performances serving approximately 6,100 students, and 22 subsidized nonprofit rentals.\n\nCAPITAL NEED\n- Water infiltration at the parapet and failed mortar joints is damaging interior plaster near the east auditorium wall.\n- Several glazed-terracotta units are cracked or displaced. Temporary netting protects the sidewalk beneath the marquee return.\n- The original steel windows serving the second-floor rehearsal rooms have corrosion, failed glazing compound, and air leakage.\n- An accessibility review found that wheelchair users can enter the auditorium but cannot independently reach the stage or second-floor rehearsal rooms.\n- The existing stage electrical distribution dates from a 1974 renovation. The project electrician documented overheating at two disconnects and insufficient capacity for typical touring productions.\n- The Trust has isolated the affected circuits and reduced allowable production loads. No fire or injury has occurred.\n\nPROPOSED 18-MONTH PROJECT\n1. Repoint masonry using mortar matched through laboratory analysis.\n2. Repair or selectively replace damaged glazed terracotta; retain sound historic units.\n3. Rebuild parapet flashing and repair associated roof-edge conditions.\n4. Restore 14 original steel windows with new glazing and weather seals.\n5. Install a code-compliant interior platform lift connecting the auditorium, stage, and second-floor rehearsal level. Final placement was selected to avoid removing ornamental plaster.\n6. Replace stage electrical distribution, disconnects, and company switches; retain nonhazardous historic switch plates for interpretation.\n7. Conserve water-damaged ornamental plaster and repaint repaired areas based on finish analysis.\n8. Commission the electrical and lift systems, complete closeout documentation, and update the cyclical maintenance plan.\n\nPROJECT TEAM AND READINESS\n- Preservation architect: Bell & Orton Architects; completed a conditions assessment and 60% construction documents.\n- Structural engineer: Keene Structural Studio.\n- Electrical engineer: Northline MEP.\n- Terracotta conservator: Alcott Materials Conservation.\n- Owner's representative: CivicBuild Partners.\n- The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the design-development package and requested two refinements: preserve additional window hardware where feasible and distinguish replacement terracotta units with discreet date stamps. The design team accepted both.\n- Local planning approval has been issued. Building-permit review begins after 90% documents.\n- Environmental testing found lead paint in limited backstage locations; abatement is included in the scope. No asbestos was detected in sampled project areas.\n\nBUDGET AND FUNDING\n- Construction: $1,640,000\n- Design and engineering: $214,000\n- Conservation testing and monitoring: $76,000\n- Owner's representation: $92,000\n- Permits, insurance, and testing: $58,000\n- Contingency: $220,000\n- Total: $2,300,000\n- Confirmed: $650,000 city capital appropriation; $400,000 state cultural-facilities award; $275,000 private foundation grant; $225,000 board-restricted capital funds.\n- Pending: $500,000 requested from this grantmaker; $250,000 local capital campaign.\n- The city and state awards reimburse eligible expenses. The Trust has secured a $500,000 line of credit to manage timing, but intends to minimize borrowing costs.\n\nSCHEDULE\n- Final design and permits: January-April 2027\n- Bidding and contractor selection: May-June 2027\n- Construction mobilization: July 2027\n- Exterior and window work: July-November 2027\n- Interior accessibility and electrical work: September 2027-February 2028\n- Plaster conservation: January-March 2028\n- Commissioning and closeout: April-June 2028\n- The theater will close for eight weeks during electrical cutover and lift installation. Other work will be phased around programming.\n\nCOMMUNITY AND OUTCOMES\n- The county population is approximately 61,000.\n- The Trust offers $5 student tickets for designated events and waives rental fees for the annual county high-school arts showcase.\n- Three local disability advocates participated in review meetings and supported the platform-lift location because it permits independent stage access while limiting loss of historic fabric. Do not describe them as formal project partners.\n- Expected outcomes: eliminate active envelope leaks in the project area; return all 14 windows to operable, weather-resistant condition; provide an accessible route to the stage and rehearsal level; replace hazardous and capacity-limited stage electrical equipment; conserve approximately 1,850 square feet of ornamental plaster; reduce event cancellations and technical workarounds.\n- The Trust expects to increase touring productions from 9 annually to 14 within two years after completion. This is a projection, not a commitment.\n\nLONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP\n- The facilities committee performs quarterly building walks.\n- The Trust budgets $38,000 annually for routine building maintenance and plans to increase this by $12,000 after the project.\n- A building reserve receives 3% of unrestricted annual revenue.\n- Bell & Orton will provide a revised 10-year maintenance schedule at closeout.\n- Staff will log facade, roof-edge, window, lift, electrical, and plaster inspections in a shared maintenance register.\n\nThe grantmaker scores significance, urgency, preservation approach, public benefit, feasibility, financial sustainability, and measurable outcomes. The narrative limit is 1,500 words."
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "The record is strong enough to develop a credible narrative, but I would want four points resolved before producing submission-ready copy:\n\n1. What exact project title and grant program name should appear in the narrative?\n2. Should the $500,000 request be framed as closing the final confirmed funding gap even though the $250,000 local campaign remains pending, or is the campaign expected to be completed before an award decision?\n3. Is the contingency intentionally $220,000, and may I describe it as approximately 10% of pre-contingency project costs?\n4. Does the grantmaker require a separate section on risks, or should schedule, cash-flow, permitting, hazardous-material, and construction-phasing risks be integrated under feasibility?\n\nI can otherwise organize the response directly around the seven scoring criteria, clearly distinguish documented conditions from projections, explain preservation tradeoffs, and reconcile the project budget and funding plan."
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Use the project title “Rialto Theatre Envelope, Access, and Stage Renewal” and refer to the funder generically as “the grantmaker.” The local campaign is scheduled to conclude by March 2027, before the anticipated award decision in May 2027; $110,000 of the $250,000 campaign goal has already been pledged, but those pledges are not included in the confirmed-funding list above. Present the grant as the essential final institutional commitment that will allow the Trust to proceed without reducing scope. Explain the remaining campaign balance accurately rather than calling the whole project fully funded.\n\nYes, the $220,000 contingency is intentional. You may describe it as approximately 10.6% of the $2.08 million in pre-contingency costs. Integrate risks and mitigations under feasibility rather than creating a separate risk section.\n\nNow write the finished narrative in 1,300-1,500 words. Use informative headings aligned to the scoring criteria, but make the document read as a cohesive case for support rather than seven disconnected answers. Open with a concise executive case, then cover significance and urgency, preservation approach, public benefit and accessibility, readiness and feasibility, budget and financial sustainability, measurable outcomes, and long-term stewardship. Reconcile every funding figure, explain the reimbursement-related cash-flow plan, and address the eight-week closure without minimizing disruption. Distinguish current facts, confirmed funds, pending funds, and projections. Use confident, plain professional language; avoid inflated claims, generic praise, unsupported economic-impact language, and invented facts. End with a short conclusion stating what the grant will make possible."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run minimax:m2.7@0 \
  settings.temperature=0.7 \
  settings.topP=0.9 \
  settings.maxTokens=4096 \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="I am preparing a capital grant application for the nonprofit Marlowe Civic Arts Trust. Draft the core narrative for restoration of the Rialto Theatre, a 1931 Art Deco venue in Marlowe, Ohio. Before writing, identify any essential gaps that would prevent a credible application.

Use only the facts below; do not invent quotations, statistics, partnerships, or regulatory claims.

ORGANIZATION
- Marlowe Civic Arts Trust is a 501(c)(3) formed in 2016 to preserve the Rialto and operate it as an affordable regional performing-arts venue.
- The Trust owns the building without a mortgage.
- Governance: nine-member volunteer board; standing finance, facilities, and programming committees.
- Staff: one full-time executive director, one full-time venue manager, and eight part-time event employees.
- FY2025 operating revenue: \$684,000. Sources: ticket sales 41%, rentals 19%, individual giving 18%, municipal support 12%, concessions 6%, other 4%.
- FY2025 ended with a \$22,000 operating surplus. Board-designated cash reserve: \$146,000.
- The Trust has completed two prior capital projects: a \$310,000 roof replacement in 2019 and a \$185,000 fire-alarm and emergency-lighting upgrade in 2022. Both were completed within budget; the roof project finished six weeks late because matching slate was unavailable.

BUILDING AND SIGNIFICANCE
- The 812-seat Rialto Theatre opened in 1931 and retains its original glazed-terracotta facade, terrazzo lobby floor, geometric plasterwork, auditorium light fixtures, and painted proscenium.
- It is the only surviving purpose-built movie palace in Harlan County.
- It was listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.
- The theater closed commercially in 1998. The Trust acquired it in 2017 and reopened the auditorium in 2020 after basic life-safety work.
- Current uses include concerts, school performances, film screenings, civic meetings, touring theater, and subsidized rentals for local nonprofits.
- FY2025 activity: 118 public events, 46,300 admissions, 17 school performances serving approximately 6,100 students, and 22 subsidized nonprofit rentals.

CAPITAL NEED
- Water infiltration at the parapet and failed mortar joints is damaging interior plaster near the east auditorium wall.
- Several glazed-terracotta units are cracked or displaced. Temporary netting protects the sidewalk beneath the marquee return.
- The original steel windows serving the second-floor rehearsal rooms have corrosion, failed glazing compound, and air leakage.
- An accessibility review found that wheelchair users can enter the auditorium but cannot independently reach the stage or second-floor rehearsal rooms.
- The existing stage electrical distribution dates from a 1974 renovation. The project electrician documented overheating at two disconnects and insufficient capacity for typical touring productions.
- The Trust has isolated the affected circuits and reduced allowable production loads. No fire or injury has occurred.

PROPOSED 18-MONTH PROJECT
1. Repoint masonry using mortar matched through laboratory analysis.
2. Repair or selectively replace damaged glazed terracotta; retain sound historic units.
3. Rebuild parapet flashing and repair associated roof-edge conditions.
4. Restore 14 original steel windows with new glazing and weather seals.
5. Install a code-compliant interior platform lift connecting the auditorium, stage, and second-floor rehearsal level. Final placement was selected to avoid removing ornamental plaster.
6. Replace stage electrical distribution, disconnects, and company switches; retain nonhazardous historic switch plates for interpretation.
7. Conserve water-damaged ornamental plaster and repaint repaired areas based on finish analysis.
8. Commission the electrical and lift systems, complete closeout documentation, and update the cyclical maintenance plan.

PROJECT TEAM AND READINESS
- Preservation architect: Bell & Orton Architects; completed a conditions assessment and 60% construction documents.
- Structural engineer: Keene Structural Studio.
- Electrical engineer: Northline MEP.
- Terracotta conservator: Alcott Materials Conservation.
- Owner's representative: CivicBuild Partners.
- The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the design-development package and requested two refinements: preserve additional window hardware where feasible and distinguish replacement terracotta units with discreet date stamps. The design team accepted both.
- Local planning approval has been issued. Building-permit review begins after 90% documents.
- Environmental testing found lead paint in limited backstage locations; abatement is included in the scope. No asbestos was detected in sampled project areas.

BUDGET AND FUNDING
- Construction: \$1,640,000
- Design and engineering: \$214,000
- Conservation testing and monitoring: \$76,000
- Owner's representation: \$92,000
- Permits, insurance, and testing: \$58,000
- Contingency: \$220,000
- Total: \$2,300,000
- Confirmed: \$650,000 city capital appropriation; \$400,000 state cultural-facilities award; \$275,000 private foundation grant; \$225,000 board-restricted capital funds.
- Pending: \$500,000 requested from this grantmaker; \$250,000 local capital campaign.
- The city and state awards reimburse eligible expenses. The Trust has secured a \$500,000 line of credit to manage timing, but intends to minimize borrowing costs.

SCHEDULE
- Final design and permits: January-April 2027
- Bidding and contractor selection: May-June 2027
- Construction mobilization: July 2027
- Exterior and window work: July-November 2027
- Interior accessibility and electrical work: September 2027-February 2028
- Plaster conservation: January-March 2028
- Commissioning and closeout: April-June 2028
- The theater will close for eight weeks during electrical cutover and lift installation. Other work will be phased around programming.

COMMUNITY AND OUTCOMES
- The county population is approximately 61,000.
- The Trust offers \$5 student tickets for designated events and waives rental fees for the annual county high-school arts showcase.
- Three local disability advocates participated in review meetings and supported the platform-lift location because it permits independent stage access while limiting loss of historic fabric. Do not describe them as formal project partners.
- Expected outcomes: eliminate active envelope leaks in the project area; return all 14 windows to operable, weather-resistant condition; provide an accessible route to the stage and rehearsal level; replace hazardous and capacity-limited stage electrical equipment; conserve approximately 1,850 square feet of ornamental plaster; reduce event cancellations and technical workarounds.
- The Trust expects to increase touring productions from 9 annually to 14 within two years after completion. This is a projection, not a commitment.

LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP
- The facilities committee performs quarterly building walks.
- The Trust budgets \$38,000 annually for routine building maintenance and plans to increase this by \$12,000 after the project.
- A building reserve receives 3% of unrestricted annual revenue.
- Bell & Orton will provide a revised 10-year maintenance schedule at closeout.
- Staff will log facade, roof-edge, window, lift, electrical, and plaster inspections in a shared maintenance register.

The grantmaker scores significance, urgency, preservation approach, public benefit, feasibility, financial sustainability, and measurable outcomes. The narrative limit is 1,500 words." \
  messages.1.role=assistant \
  messages.1.content="The record is strong enough to develop a credible narrative, but I would want four points resolved before producing submission-ready copy:

1. What exact project title and grant program name should appear in the narrative?
2. Should the \$500,000 request be framed as closing the final confirmed funding gap even though the \$250,000 local campaign remains pending, or is the campaign expected to be completed before an award decision?
3. Is the contingency intentionally \$220,000, and may I describe it as approximately 10% of pre-contingency project costs?
4. Does the grantmaker require a separate section on risks, or should schedule, cash-flow, permitting, hazardous-material, and construction-phasing risks be integrated under feasibility?

I can otherwise organize the response directly around the seven scoring criteria, clearly distinguish documented conditions from projections, explain preservation tradeoffs, and reconcile the project budget and funding plan." \
  messages.2.role=user \
  messages.2.content="Use the project title “Rialto Theatre Envelope, Access, and Stage Renewal” and refer to the funder generically as “the grantmaker.” The local campaign is scheduled to conclude by March 2027, before the anticipated award decision in May 2027; \$110,000 of the \$250,000 campaign goal has already been pledged, but those pledges are not included in the confirmed-funding list above. Present the grant as the essential final institutional commitment that will allow the Trust to proceed without reducing scope. Explain the remaining campaign balance accurately rather than calling the whole project fully funded.

Yes, the \$220,000 contingency is intentional. You may describe it as approximately 10.6% of the \$2.08 million in pre-contingency costs. Integrate risks and mitigations under feasibility rather than creating a separate risk section.

Now write the finished narrative in 1,300-1,500 words. Use informative headings aligned to the scoring criteria, but make the document read as a cohesive case for support rather than seven disconnected answers. Open with a concise executive case, then cover significance and urgency, preservation approach, public benefit and accessibility, readiness and feasibility, budget and financial sustainability, measurable outcomes, and long-term stewardship. Reconcile every funding figure, explain the reimbursement-related cash-flow plan, and address the eight-week closure without minimizing disruption. Distinguish current facts, confirmed funds, pending funds, and projections. Use confident, plain professional language; avoid inflated claims, generic praise, unsupported economic-impact language, and invented facts. End with a short conclusion stating what the grant will make possible."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "3da68bf5-5926-4aa0-9b4d-f0980fbc59a4",
  "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
  "settings": {
    "temperature": 0.7,
    "topP": 0.9,
    "maxTokens": 4096
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "I am preparing a capital grant application for the nonprofit Marlowe Civic Arts Trust. Draft the core narrative for restoration of the Rialto Theatre, a 1931 Art Deco venue in Marlowe, Ohio. Before writing, identify any essential gaps that would prevent a credible application.\n\nUse only the facts below; do not invent quotations, statistics, partnerships, or regulatory claims.\n\nORGANIZATION\n- Marlowe Civic Arts Trust is a 501(c)(3) formed in 2016 to preserve the Rialto and operate it as an affordable regional performing-arts venue.\n- The Trust owns the building without a mortgage.\n- Governance: nine-member volunteer board; standing finance, facilities, and programming committees.\n- Staff: one full-time executive director, one full-time venue manager, and eight part-time event employees.\n- FY2025 operating revenue: $684,000. Sources: ticket sales 41%, rentals 19%, individual giving 18%, municipal support 12%, concessions 6%, other 4%.\n- FY2025 ended with a $22,000 operating surplus. Board-designated cash reserve: $146,000.\n- The Trust has completed two prior capital projects: a $310,000 roof replacement in 2019 and a $185,000 fire-alarm and emergency-lighting upgrade in 2022. Both were completed within budget; the roof project finished six weeks late because matching slate was unavailable.\n\nBUILDING AND SIGNIFICANCE\n- The 812-seat Rialto Theatre opened in 1931 and retains its original glazed-terracotta facade, terrazzo lobby floor, geometric plasterwork, auditorium light fixtures, and painted proscenium.\n- It is the only surviving purpose-built movie palace in Harlan County.\n- It was listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places in 2009.\n- The theater closed commercially in 1998. The Trust acquired it in 2017 and reopened the auditorium in 2020 after basic life-safety work.\n- Current uses include concerts, school performances, film screenings, civic meetings, touring theater, and subsidized rentals for local nonprofits.\n- FY2025 activity: 118 public events, 46,300 admissions, 17 school performances serving approximately 6,100 students, and 22 subsidized nonprofit rentals.\n\nCAPITAL NEED\n- Water infiltration at the parapet and failed mortar joints is damaging interior plaster near the east auditorium wall.\n- Several glazed-terracotta units are cracked or displaced. Temporary netting protects the sidewalk beneath the marquee return.\n- The original steel windows serving the second-floor rehearsal rooms have corrosion, failed glazing compound, and air leakage.\n- An accessibility review found that wheelchair users can enter the auditorium but cannot independently reach the stage or second-floor rehearsal rooms.\n- The existing stage electrical distribution dates from a 1974 renovation. The project electrician documented overheating at two disconnects and insufficient capacity for typical touring productions.\n- The Trust has isolated the affected circuits and reduced allowable production loads. No fire or injury has occurred.\n\nPROPOSED 18-MONTH PROJECT\n1. Repoint masonry using mortar matched through laboratory analysis.\n2. Repair or selectively replace damaged glazed terracotta; retain sound historic units.\n3. Rebuild parapet flashing and repair associated roof-edge conditions.\n4. Restore 14 original steel windows with new glazing and weather seals.\n5. Install a code-compliant interior platform lift connecting the auditorium, stage, and second-floor rehearsal level. Final placement was selected to avoid removing ornamental plaster.\n6. Replace stage electrical distribution, disconnects, and company switches; retain nonhazardous historic switch plates for interpretation.\n7. Conserve water-damaged ornamental plaster and repaint repaired areas based on finish analysis.\n8. Commission the electrical and lift systems, complete closeout documentation, and update the cyclical maintenance plan.\n\nPROJECT TEAM AND READINESS\n- Preservation architect: Bell & Orton Architects; completed a conditions assessment and 60% construction documents.\n- Structural engineer: Keene Structural Studio.\n- Electrical engineer: Northline MEP.\n- Terracotta conservator: Alcott Materials Conservation.\n- Owner's representative: CivicBuild Partners.\n- The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the design-development package and requested two refinements: preserve additional window hardware where feasible and distinguish replacement terracotta units with discreet date stamps. The design team accepted both.\n- Local planning approval has been issued. Building-permit review begins after 90% documents.\n- Environmental testing found lead paint in limited backstage locations; abatement is included in the scope. No asbestos was detected in sampled project areas.\n\nBUDGET AND FUNDING\n- Construction: $1,640,000\n- Design and engineering: $214,000\n- Conservation testing and monitoring: $76,000\n- Owner's representation: $92,000\n- Permits, insurance, and testing: $58,000\n- Contingency: $220,000\n- Total: $2,300,000\n- Confirmed: $650,000 city capital appropriation; $400,000 state cultural-facilities award; $275,000 private foundation grant; $225,000 board-restricted capital funds.\n- Pending: $500,000 requested from this grantmaker; $250,000 local capital campaign.\n- The city and state awards reimburse eligible expenses. The Trust has secured a $500,000 line of credit to manage timing, but intends to minimize borrowing costs.\n\nSCHEDULE\n- Final design and permits: January-April 2027\n- Bidding and contractor selection: May-June 2027\n- Construction mobilization: July 2027\n- Exterior and window work: July-November 2027\n- Interior accessibility and electrical work: September 2027-February 2028\n- Plaster conservation: January-March 2028\n- Commissioning and closeout: April-June 2028\n- The theater will close for eight weeks during electrical cutover and lift installation. Other work will be phased around programming.\n\nCOMMUNITY AND OUTCOMES\n- The county population is approximately 61,000.\n- The Trust offers $5 student tickets for designated events and waives rental fees for the annual county high-school arts showcase.\n- Three local disability advocates participated in review meetings and supported the platform-lift location because it permits independent stage access while limiting loss of historic fabric. Do not describe them as formal project partners.\n- Expected outcomes: eliminate active envelope leaks in the project area; return all 14 windows to operable, weather-resistant condition; provide an accessible route to the stage and rehearsal level; replace hazardous and capacity-limited stage electrical equipment; conserve approximately 1,850 square feet of ornamental plaster; reduce event cancellations and technical workarounds.\n- The Trust expects to increase touring productions from 9 annually to 14 within two years after completion. This is a projection, not a commitment.\n\nLONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP\n- The facilities committee performs quarterly building walks.\n- The Trust budgets $38,000 annually for routine building maintenance and plans to increase this by $12,000 after the project.\n- A building reserve receives 3% of unrestricted annual revenue.\n- Bell & Orton will provide a revised 10-year maintenance schedule at closeout.\n- Staff will log facade, roof-edge, window, lift, electrical, and plaster inspections in a shared maintenance register.\n\nThe grantmaker scores significance, urgency, preservation approach, public benefit, feasibility, financial sustainability, and measurable outcomes. The narrative limit is 1,500 words."
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "The record is strong enough to develop a credible narrative, but I would want four points resolved before producing submission-ready copy:\n\n1. What exact project title and grant program name should appear in the narrative?\n2. Should the $500,000 request be framed as closing the final confirmed funding gap even though the $250,000 local campaign remains pending, or is the campaign expected to be completed before an award decision?\n3. Is the contingency intentionally $220,000, and may I describe it as approximately 10% of pre-contingency project costs?\n4. Does the grantmaker require a separate section on risks, or should schedule, cash-flow, permitting, hazardous-material, and construction-phasing risks be integrated under feasibility?\n\nI can otherwise organize the response directly around the seven scoring criteria, clearly distinguish documented conditions from projections, explain preservation tradeoffs, and reconcile the project budget and funding plan."
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Use the project title “Rialto Theatre Envelope, Access, and Stage Renewal” and refer to the funder generically as “the grantmaker.” The local campaign is scheduled to conclude by March 2027, before the anticipated award decision in May 2027; $110,000 of the $250,000 campaign goal has already been pledged, but those pledges are not included in the confirmed-funding list above. Present the grant as the essential final institutional commitment that will allow the Trust to proceed without reducing scope. Explain the remaining campaign balance accurately rather than calling the whole project fully funded.\n\nYes, the $220,000 contingency is intentional. You may describe it as approximately 10.6% of the $2.08 million in pre-contingency costs. Integrate risks and mitigations under feasibility rather than creating a separate risk section.\n\nNow write the finished narrative in 1,300-1,500 words. Use informative headings aligned to the scoring criteria, but make the document read as a cohesive case for support rather than seven disconnected answers. Open with a concise executive case, then cover significance and urgency, preservation approach, public benefit and accessibility, readiness and feasibility, budget and financial sustainability, measurable outcomes, and long-term stewardship. Reconcile every funding figure, explain the reimbursement-related cash-flow plan, and address the eight-week closure without minimizing disruption. Distinguish current facts, confirmed funds, pending funds, and projections. Use confident, plain professional language; avoid inflated claims, generic praise, unsupported economic-impact language, and invented facts. End with a short conclusion stating what the grant will make possible."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'minimax:m2.7@0',
  settings: {
    temperature: 0.3,
    topP: 0.9,
    maxTokens: 2048
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Our neuropathology team at St. Anne\'s cannot open whole-slide images in the case review workspace. Thumbnails appear, but the full-resolution viewer remains on “Loading image.”'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'I can help determine whether this is a platform incident or a local issue. Which environment, deployment region, and service component is affected?'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Production, EU-West, and the slide-viewer service. Before we page our hospital IT team, check the application\'s current service status for that component and region.'
    }
  ],
  tools: [
    {
      type: 'function',
      name: 'get_service_status',
      description: 'Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.',
      schema: {}
    }
  ],
  toolChoice: {
    type: 'tool',
    name: 'get_service_status'
  }
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
            "settings": {
                "temperature": 0.3,
                "topP": 0.9,
                "maxTokens": 2048
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Our neuropathology team at St. Anne's cannot open whole-slide images in the case review workspace. Thumbnails appear, but the full-resolution viewer remains on “Loading image.”"
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "I can help determine whether this is a platform incident or a local issue. Which environment, deployment region, and service component is affected?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Production, EU-West, and the slide-viewer service. Before we page our hospital IT team, check the application's current service status for that component and region."
                }
            ],
            "tools": [
                {
                    "type": "function",
                    "name": "get_service_status",
                    "description": "Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.",
                    "schema": {}
                }
            ],
            "toolChoice": {
                "type": "tool",
                "name": "get_service_status"
            }
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "0ff7e1af-0f94-4682-b518-d7ef1d707cc7",
      "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
      "settings": {
        "temperature": 0.3,
        "topP": 0.9,
        "maxTokens": 2048
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Our neuropathology team at St. Anne's cannot open whole-slide images in the case review workspace. Thumbnails appear, but the full-resolution viewer remains on “Loading image.”"
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "I can help determine whether this is a platform incident or a local issue. Which environment, deployment region, and service component is affected?"
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Production, EU-West, and the slide-viewer service. Before we page our hospital IT team, check the application's current service status for that component and region."
        }
      ],
      "tools": [
        {
          "type": "function",
          "name": "get_service_status",
          "description": "Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.",
          "schema": {}
        }
      ],
      "toolChoice": {
        "type": "tool",
        "name": "get_service_status"
      }
    }
  ]'

runware run minimax:m2.7@0 \
  settings.temperature=0.3 \
  settings.topP=0.9 \
  settings.maxTokens=2048 \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Our neuropathology team at St. Anne's cannot open whole-slide images in the case review workspace. Thumbnails appear, but the full-resolution viewer remains on “Loading image.”" \
  messages.1.role=assistant \
  messages.1.content="I can help determine whether this is a platform incident or a local issue. Which environment, deployment region, and service component is affected?" \
  messages.2.role=user \
  messages.2.content="Production, EU-West, and the slide-viewer service. Before we page our hospital IT team, check the application's current service status for that component and region." \
  tools.0.type=function \
  tools.0.name=get_service_status \
  tools.0.description="Retrieves the current operational status of the application service." \
  toolChoice.type=tool \
  toolChoice.name=get_service_status

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "0ff7e1af-0f94-4682-b518-d7ef1d707cc7",
  "model": "minimax:m2.7@0",
  "settings": {
    "temperature": 0.3,
    "topP": 0.9,
    "maxTokens": 2048
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Our neuropathology team at St. Anne's cannot open whole-slide images in the case review workspace. Thumbnails appear, but the full-resolution viewer remains on “Loading image.”"
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "I can help determine whether this is a platform incident or a local issue. Which environment, deployment region, and service component is affected?"
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Production, EU-West, and the slide-viewer service. Before we page our hospital IT team, check the application's current service status for that component and region."
    }
  ],
  "tools": [
    {
      "type": "function",
      "name": "get_service_status",
      "description": "Retrieves the current operational status of the application service.",
      "schema": {}
    }
  ],
  "toolChoice": {
    "type": "tool",
    "name": "get_service_status"
  }
}