🚀 Foundry Toolkit for VS Code — August 2026 Update
This is the August round-up for the Foundry Toolkit for VS Code. Four releases shipped this month: 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.6.9, and 1.6.10. August was about turning agent development into a workflow you can follow end to end — start from the right path, connect reusable tools and other agents, run with real user isolation, and inspect exactly where the time and tokens went. Have feedback or hit a bug? File an issue on GitHub — the roadmap moves on what you tell us. Highlights Prompt Agent toolboxes — attach a centrally managed toolbox, inspect its tools and skills, manage versions and approval policies, and configure nested tools without leaving Agent Builder. 1.6.10 Agent-to-Agent connections (preview) — connect an Agent2Agent (A2A)-compatible agent from a configured connection, the Foundry account catalog, or a custom HTTPS endpoint. 1.6.10 Agent Inspector Overview — read a latency waterfall and an ordered timeline of model, reasoning, and tool activity for all runs or one selected run. 1.6.9 User-scoped Hosted Agent sessions — set a user identity so Responses conversations and session files stay isolated per user. 1.6.8 A clearer Create Agent start — choose Microsoft Agent Framework, Copilot SDK, LangGraph, Copilot-assisted coding, Agent Builder, or the full sample catalog from one redesigned page. 1.6.9 🤖 Create Agents — start on the right path, then stay in context Starting an agent shouldn't begin with choosing the wrong abstraction. The redesigned Create Agent page gives you direct routes to Microsoft Agent Framework, Copilot SDK, and LangGraph samples, Copilot-assisted coding, Agent Builder, and the complete sample catalog. You decide whether you want code, a guided build, or a prompt agent first — not after scaffolding the wrong project. 1.6.9 Hosted Agent setup is also less brittle. You can choose Skip for now during model setup even when existing deployments fail to load, then wire the model connection later. Administrator-connected Foundry models now appear alongside regular deployments in playgrounds and Hosted Agent creation, so the models your organization already configured are available where you build. 1.6.8 1.6.9 Once an agent is running, identity matters. The Hosted Agent Playground can now set a user identity for Responses conversations, keeping conversation state and session files isolated for each user instead of blending everyone into one test session. And when somebody sends you a Microsoft Foundry portal link, deep links can open that named Hosted Agent's Details or Optimization page directly in VS Code — not the portal home, not a search screen. 1.6.8 1.6.10 🔧 Toolboxes and A2A — connect capabilities once, reuse them An agent with five tools can become five separate configurations, five approval stories, and five places to make the same update. Toolbox changes that shape: it packages centrally managed tools behind one Model Context Protocol (MCP)-compatible endpoint, with shared versioning and policy controls. In August, Prompt Agents gained toolbox workflows inside Agent Builder. Open Add tools to browse toolboxes, or use Add to Prompt Agent from the Toolbox resource list. The attached toolbox appears as a collapsible card where you can inspect tools and skills, switch versions, configure approval policies and nested tools, replace or remove the toolbox, or opt out. You manage the collection — not a loose pile of one-off connections. 1.6.10 Agent-to-agent composition arrives in the same flow. Agent-to-Agent connections (preview) let you add an A2A-compatible agent from an existing connection, the Foundry account catalog, or a custom HTTPS endpoint. Attach it directly to a Prompt Agent or put it inside a toolbox for reuse across agents and runtimes. Your pipeline can now be agent → toolbox → specialist agent — with the connection managed as a real resource instead of buried in prompt text. 1.6.10 🔍 Agent Inspector — see the run, not just the answer A final answer can look right while the run behind it is slow, expensive, or calling the wrong tool. Agent Inspector now gives you the sequence and the evidence. The new default Overview tab shows every run or one selected run through two synchronized views: a latency waterfall and an ordered timeline of model, reasoning, and tool activity. Response footers add the model, duration, total tokens, and timestamp; hover over the token total to split input from output. Raw reasoning and reasoning summaries appear in separate collapsible sections when the agent provides them. 1.6.9 Tool inspection goes deeper in 1.6.10. Calls are grouped by response run, with status, call ID, arguments, and results, and each Responses event can show when it reached Agent Inspector. The Overview waterfall and timeline now scroll independently, while long streaming responses and Details views update more smoothly. You can move from "the tool failed" to the exact call and payload without reconstructing the run from chat bubbles. 1.6.10 The conversation itself is easier to drive: press Up or Down to recall and edit earlier requests without losing your unsent draft, or choose Clear Chat to reset the conversation plus Events and Details state. Pending MCP approvals and OAuth consent requests stay pinned above the input, with bulk actions and expandable details, until every decision is resolved. 1.6.7 1.6.9 🎯 Models and resources — faster to open, steadier when you return Resource pages should remember your work, not reset it. Models and Tools now load the selected tab first and show core rows before fetching the extra details. When you return to Agents, Models, Tools, Knowledge, or Evaluations, the toolkit preserves rows, search, filters, and pagination while refreshing the active view in the background. A manual refresh still gets the latest service state when you ask for it. 1.6.7 The sidebar does less work too. Collapsed My Resources sections load only when you open them, while Search and Recent Agents remain available. Evaluations, Routines, Tools, Skills, and Toolboxes now share consistent loading feedback, and a direct link to Tools or Skills opens the requested tab without loading Toolboxes first. The result isn't a new destination — it's less waiting on the way there. 1.6.7 1.6.8 Model deployment guidance got one sharp fix as well: quota errors now open the token quota page for your current Foundry project, so the recovery path lands on the project that actually needs capacity. 1.6.10 💻 Activity protocol agents — debugging that matches the agent Activity Protocol agents target Microsoft 365 channels, so local debugging should speak the same language. Newly scaffolded Python projects now open Microsoft 365 Agents Playground inside VS Code for local debugging. You stay in the editor and test the activity-shaped conversation before deployment instead of forcing it through an incompatible playground. 1.6.7 Copilot-assisted creation also follows the current Hosted Agent path: current Foundry project and model setup, a managed Python environment, workspace-root debugging, and the latest local run and deployment flow. When you reuse the selected Foundry project, Copilot no longer asks you to choose its Azure location again. 1.6.10 🪲 Fixes and polish Agent Inspector — streamed response and reasoning text stays complete; response text, reasoning, tool calls, and permission decisions keep their original order; replacement turns reject obsolete stream events; and unmatched tool calls or results no longer appear in Details. 1.6.9 1.6.10 Approvals and consent — human-in-the-loop pauses no longer duplicate tool or approval cards, Clear Chat remains available while a turn waits, and continuation responses retain pending approvals until every request is resolved. 1.6.8 1.6.9 Activity Protocol deployment — Azure Bot settings are validated before submission, compatible Bots are reused, identity and application ID conflicts get recovery guidance, and successful deployments no longer open an unsupported Agent Playground. 1.6.7 1.6.8 Agent Builder and MCP OAuth — reopening a Foundry Prompt Agent preserves its selected version and tool configuration, while authorization callbacks complete only the matching connection request. 1.6.8 Accessibility — screen readers announce Model Catalog actions, collapsible Agent Builder and Model Preference controls, and project and model fields with their labels and state; prompt placeholders also meet minimum contrast requirements. 1.6.10 ⚠️ Breaking change and migration GitHub Models has been removed from the Model Catalog, playground, model comparison, Agent Builder, and evaluations following the service's retirement. If a saved workflow or evaluation references GitHub Models, open it and select another available model before running it again. 1.6.7 🚀 Get it and tell us what to build next August connected the whole agent loop: choose the right starting point, reuse governed tools, compose agents through A2A, isolate real users, and inspect the run down to timing, tokens, arguments, and results. Install or update from the Visual Studio Code Marketplace. Read the docs — Foundry Toolkit for Visual Studio Code and the Microsoft Foundry documentation. Explore samples in the Microsoft Foundry samples repository. Browse the full changelog in WHATS_NEW.md. File issues and feature requests at github.com/microsoft/foundry-toolkit/issues. Join the Microsoft Foundry community on Discord. Try a toolbox with your next Prompt Agent, open the run in Agent Inspector, and tell us where the workflow still slows you down. Happy building. 🚀Distributing Agents to Microsoft Teams and Microsoft 365 Copilot Part 4/5
This is the fourth post in our series on the Microsoft agent platform. We cover the Distribute in M365 pillar — publishing your agents to Microsoft Teams and Microsoft 365 Copilot so they reach users where they already work. All examples reference the FibreOps repository, demonstrated at Microsoft Build BRK241. The Distribution Story Building a great agent is only half the challenge. The other half is getting it into the hands of users without asking them to learn a new tool, visit a new URL, or change their workflow. Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Teams are where enterprise users already spend their day, making them the natural distribution surface for agents. With the GA release, publishing an agent to Teams and M365 Copilot is a single command. No separate app registration portal, no manual manifest assembly, no multi-step approval workflow for development and testing. Publishing to Microsoft 365 Copilot (GA) FibreOps ships as a declarative agent + action plugin ready for sideload. A single CLI command produces the complete package: python -m fibreops.demo publish-m365 --out dist/m365 # Output: # ✓ wrote dist/m365/declarativeAgent.json # ✓ wrote dist/m365/fibreops-action.json # ✓ wrote dist/m365/manifest.json # ✓ wrote dist/m365/color.png (192x192) # ✓ wrote dist/m365/outline.png ( 32x32) # ✓ wrote dist/m365/fibreops-copilot.zip What Gets Generated File Purpose declarativeAgent.json Defines the agent's persona, capabilities, and conversation starters for M365 Copilot fibreops-action.json Action plugin that proxies tool calls to the deployed FastAPI backend via OpenAPI manifest.json Teams app manifest with publisher metadata, permissions, and capabilities color.png / outline.png App icons for Teams and M365 surfaces fibreops-copilot.zip Ready-to-upload package for Teams Admin Center Configuration Set the base URL to your deployed FastAPI app before publishing — the action plugin uses this to resolve the OpenAPI runtime: # Set the public HTTPS hostname of the deployed FastAPI app $env:M365_ACTION_BASE_URL = "https://fibreops-demo.azurewebsites.net" # Optional: customise publisher metadata $env:M365_PUBLISHER_NAME = "Contoso Network Operations" $env:M365_PUBLISHER_WEBSITE = "https://contoso.com/noc" # Generate the package python -m fibreops.demo publish-m365 --out dist/m365 Environment Variable Purpose M365_ACTION_BASE_URL Public HTTPS root for the FastAPI /openapi.json (e.g., Container Apps FQDN) M365_APP_ID Override the generated Teams app GUID (default: deterministic per repo) M365_PUBLISHER_NAME Publisher name shown in M365 Admin Center M365_PUBLISHER_WEBSITE Publisher website link Uploading the Package Upload the generated fibreops-copilot.zip through either path: Teams Admin Center → Manage apps → Upload new app M365 Admin Center → Integrated apps → Upload custom apps Once uploaded, the declarative agent: Inherits the publisher metadata you configured Advertises conversation starters from the FibreOps deck (e.g., "What is the current outage status?", "Dispatch an engineer to FN-LDN-001") Proxies tool calls to the deployed FastAPI app via the action plugin Appears in Microsoft 365 Copilot as a specialised agent users can invoke How Declarative Agents Work A declarative agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot is defined by metadata rather than code running in the M365 surface. The intelligence lives in your backend — Copilot handles the conversational UX, tool orchestration schema, and user authentication. The flow: User invokes the agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot or Teams Copilot renders conversation starters and accepts natural language input When the agent needs to act, Copilot calls the action plugin (your OpenAPI endpoint) Your FastAPI backend processes the request using the full agent pipeline Results return to the user in the Copilot/Teams UX This architecture means your agent logic stays in one place — the backend. The M365 surface is purely a distribution and interaction layer. Action Plugins and OpenAPI The action plugin ( fibreops-action.json ) references your FastAPI app's /openapi.json endpoint. FibreOps exposes a JSON API that the action plugin can call: /api/runs — List and query agent runs /api/optimiser — Get optimizer scores and suggestions /sdk/chat — Natural language interaction with the agent system /healthz — Liveness probe Because FastAPI auto-generates OpenAPI schemas from your typed Python endpoints, the action plugin gets accurate parameter descriptions, response schemas, and error codes without any manual specification work. Publishing as Autopilots (Public Preview) Autopilots take distribution one step further — agents that operate autonomously without requiring a user to initiate each interaction. An Autopilot can: React to events (e.g., a critical telemetry signal) without human initiation Take actions within defined guardrails Notify users only when human intervention is needed Operate continuously across Microsoft 365 surfaces For FibreOps, an Autopilot would monitor the Event Hub stream continuously and only surface to the NOC team when an incident exceeds automated resolution capability — a fully autonomous operations agent. Teams Adaptive Cards FibreOps posts rich Adaptive Card notifications to Microsoft Teams throughout the agent pipeline. This is separate from the declarative agent — it is a push notification channel for real-time operational awareness. # The NetOps agent posts an outage notice via Incoming Webhook def post_outage_notice(incident_id, node_id, severity, summary, engineer=None): card = { "type": "AdaptiveCard", "body": [ {"type": "TextBlock", "text": f"🚨 Outage: {node_id}", "weight": "Bolder", "size": "Large"}, {"type": "FactSet", "facts": [ {"title": "Severity", "value": severity.upper()}, {"title": "Incident", "value": incident_id}, {"title": "Summary", "value": summary}, ]}, ], "actions": [ {"type": "Action.OpenUrl", "title": "View in NOC Console", "url": f"{base_url}/runs/{incident_id}"} ] } # POST to Teams webhook or append to outbox for offline mode ... If TEAMS_WEBHOOK_URL is not configured, cards are appended to state/teams_outbox.jsonl for review in the NOC console's Teams panel. End-to-End: From Code to Copilot Here is the complete flow from development to distribution: Build — Develop agents with Microsoft Agent Framework, test locally with python -m fibreops.demo --backend local Publish agents — python -m fibreops.demo publish creates hosted Prompt Agents in Foundry Deploy infrastructure — azd up provisions App Service, ACR, Event Hub, Key Vault, and Application Insights Deploy hosted agent — azd env set FIBREOPS_DEPLOY_HOSTED true && azd up Generate M365 package — python -m fibreops.demo publish-m365 --out dist/m365 Upload to Teams — Upload fibreops-copilot.zip via Teams Admin Center Users interact — The agent is now available in Microsoft 365 Copilot and Teams Security Considerations Managed Identity — The deployed app uses system-assigned managed identity for all Azure service access. No secrets in code. Least privilege — Each role grant is scoped to the minimum required (Event Hubs Data Owner, Key Vault Secrets User, AcrPull, Azure AI Developer). Authentication — The M365 Copilot surface handles user authentication; your backend receives authenticated requests. Guardrails — Autopilots operate within defined boundaries; human-in-the-loop escalation is built into the Routine and agent decision logic. Key Takeaways Publishing to Teams and M365 Copilot is GA — a single command generates the complete package. Declarative agents separate distribution (M365) from intelligence (your backend). Action plugins leverage your existing FastAPI OpenAPI schema — no manual specification needed. Autopilots (Public Preview) enable fully autonomous operation within guardrails. Adaptive Cards provide real-time push notifications alongside the conversational agent surface. The same backend serves the NOC console, the Copilot SDK, and the M365 declarative agent. Next Steps Explore the FibreOps repository — try python -m fibreops.demo publish-m365 Microsoft 365 Copilot extensibility documentation Next in this series: Voice Live and Observability for Production Agent SystemsBuilding Autonomous Agents with Microsoft Agent Framework and GitHub Copilot SDK Part 2/5
This is the second post in our series on the Microsoft agent platform. Here we dive deep into building autonomous agents, the development experience, the Microsoft Agent Framework, tool design patterns, and how the GitHub Copilot SDK brings conversational AI to your agent system. All examples reference the FibreOps repository, an autonomous fibre outage response system demonstrated at Microsoft Build BRK241. The Microsoft Agent Framework The Microsoft Agent Framework (now GA) provides a unified programming model for building agents. It supports multiple backends through a single .run() contract: Hosted — FoundryAgent connected to a Prompt Agent published to Microsoft Foundry Agent Service. Foundry — Agent + FoundryChatClient with the definition resolved locally (ideal for prompt iteration). Local — Deterministic LocalAgent for offline development and testing. This design means your orchestration code never changes regardless of where the agent runs. The factory pattern in FibreOps selects the backend at startup: # src/fibreops/agents/factory.py — simplified from agent_framework_foundry import FoundryAgent from agent_framework import Agent, FoundryChatClient def build_agent(role: str, backend: str, config: Config): if backend == "hosted": return FoundryAgent(agent_id=config.foundry_agents[role]) elif backend == "foundry": return Agent( instructions=get_instructions(role), chat_client=FoundryChatClient(endpoint=config.endpoint), tools=get_tools(role), ) else: return LocalAgent(role=role) Set FIBREOPS_AGENT_BACKEND to override the backend, or leave it as auto for intelligent detection. Designing Role-Specialised Agents FibreOps demonstrates a key pattern: role specialisation. Rather than one monolithic agent, the system uses three focused agents, each with a clear responsibility boundary: Agent Role Tools Available IncidentAnalysisAgent Classify severity, find root cause, retrieve SOP Knowledge (SOPs + topology), Web IQ, Work IQ NetOpsCoordinatorAgent File D365 incident, post Teams notice Ticketing, Teams, Memory FieldDispatchAgent Select engineer, book resource, update team Dispatch, Teams, Voice Why Role Specialisation? Focused system prompts — Each agent has a tightly scoped instruction set, reducing hallucination and improving reliability. Independent evaluation — You can score each agent separately against role-specific criteria. Parallel development — Teams can iterate on agents independently. Selective upgrade — Swap one agent's model or implementation without touching others. Tool Design: Typed Python Functions Tools in the Microsoft Agent Framework are typed Python functions that the runtime supplies to the hosted agent definition. FibreOps demonstrates several tool categories: Knowledge Tools # src/fibreops/tools/knowledge.py — simplified def sop_lookup(node_id: str, signal_type: str) -> dict: """Retrieve the Standard Operating Procedure for a given signal type. Args: node_id: The fibre node identifier (e.g., FN-LDN-001) signal_type: The type of signal (loss_of_light, high_ber, signal_degradation) Returns: SOP with steps, escalation path, and estimated resolution time. """ # Load from local markdown SOPs or Foundry IQ ... def web_iq_search(query: str, *, limit: int = 5) -> list[dict]: """Search public web for context relevant to the incident. Grounding against roadworks, weather, power outages, splice guidance. Falls back to deterministic fixtures when endpoint is unset. """ ... def work_iq_search(query: str, *, limit: int = 5) -> list[dict]: """Search enterprise knowledge for context relevant to the incident. Site surveys, SLA tiers, competency matrix, MTTR trends. """ ... Integration Tools # src/fibreops/tools/teams.py — simplified def post_outage_notice( incident_id: str, node_id: str, severity: str, summary: str, engineer: str | None = None, ) -> dict: """Post an Adaptive Card outage notice to the configured Teams channel. If TEAMS_WEBHOOK_URL is not set, appends to state/teams_outbox.jsonl for offline review. """ card = build_adaptive_card(incident_id, node_id, severity, summary, engineer) if config.teams_webhook_url: requests.post(config.teams_webhook_url, json=card) else: append_to_outbox(card) return {"status": "posted", "incident_id": incident_id} Design Principles for Agent Tools Typed parameters with docstrings — The runtime uses type hints and docstrings to generate the tool schema for the LLM. Graceful degradation — Every tool works offline by falling back to local fixtures or file-based state. Idempotent where possible — Tools that create resources return existing records if called with the same parameters. Observable — Every tool invocation emits an OpenTelemetry span for tracing and debugging. The Orchestrator Pattern The orchestrator drives signals through the agent pipeline. It is deliberately simple — a linear flow with error handling: # src/fibreops/orchestrator.py — simplified async def handle_signal(signal: TelemetrySignal) -> RunResult: """Process a telemetry signal through the agent pipeline.""" # Stage 1: Incident Analysis analysis = await incident_agent.run( f"Analyse this signal: {signal.model_dump_json()}" ) # Stage 2: NetOps Coordination coordination = await netops_agent.run( f"Coordinate response for: {analysis.summary}" ) # Stage 3: Field Dispatch dispatch = await dispatch_agent.run( f"Dispatch engineer for incident: {coordination.incident_id}" ) return RunResult( signal=signal, analysis=analysis, coordination=coordination, dispatch=dispatch, ) The orchestrator honours the same contract regardless of backend — hosted , foundry , or local — because all backends implement await agent.run(prompt) . GitHub Copilot SDK Integration (GA) The GitHub Copilot SDK enables conversational interaction with your agent system. FibreOps implements FibreOpsCopilotClient with the same interface as github/copilot-sdk : # src/fibreops/sdk/__init__.py — simplified from fibreops.sdk.client import FibreOpsCopilotClient client = FibreOpsCopilotClient() session = client.create_session() # Query agent status response = session.send_and_wait("status") print(response.text) # Human-readable summary print(response.data) # Structured JSON # Inject a telemetry signal via conversation response = session.send_and_wait(json.dumps({ "signal_id": "sig-demo", "node_id": "FN-LDN-001", "signal_type": "loss_of_light", "severity": "critical" })) The adapter routes prompts by shape: JSON signal-shaped dicts — Forwarded to the orchestrator for processing. Free-form text — Answered by a deterministic responder ( help , status , nodes , engineers , optimiser , dispatch ). Drive it from the terminal: python -m fibreops.demo chat "help" python -m fibreops.demo chat "status" python -m fibreops.demo chat '{"signal_id":"sig-demo","node_id":"FN-LDN-001","signal_type":"loss_of_light","severity":"critical"}' Or hit the embedded HTTP endpoint when the NOC console is running: Invoke-RestMethod -Method Post http://127.0.0.1:8800/sdk/chat -Body '{"prompt":"status"}' -ContentType application/json Development Workflow with Foundry Toolkit for VS Code The Foundry Toolkit for VS Code provides an integrated development experience: Author prompts — Edit system instructions with live preview and token counting. Test locally — Run against the foundry backend with FoundryChatClient pointing at your development model. Iterate fast — The foundry backend resolves definitions locally, so prompt changes take effect immediately without republishing. Publish when ready — python -m fibreops.demo publish creates hosted Prompt Agents in Foundry. Multi-Model Support The Microsoft Agent Framework supports multiple models. FibreOps defaults to gpt-4.1-mini (the model available in most demo Foundry accounts), but any chat-completions deployment works: # .env AZURE_AI_MODEL_DEPLOYMENT=gpt-4.1-mini # or gpt-4o-mini, gpt-4o, gpt-4.1 The framework also supports Claude Code connectors and Magentic-One for multi-agent collaboration scenarios. Testing Strategy FibreOps demonstrates a layered testing approach: Unit tests — Test tools in isolation with mocked dependencies. Local backend tests — Run the full pipeline with LocalAgent for deterministic assertions. Integration tests — Run against real Foundry agents with pytest -q . Rubric evaluation — The optimizer scores every run against defined criteria. # Run the test suite .\.venv\Scripts\python.exe -m pytest -q Key Takeaways The Microsoft Agent Framework provides a unified .run() contract across hosted, foundry, and local backends. Role specialisation keeps agents focused, testable, and independently evolvable. Tools are typed Python functions with docstrings — the runtime generates schemas automatically. The GitHub Copilot SDK (GA) enables conversational interaction with any agent system. Graceful degradation means the entire system works offline for development. The factory pattern lets you switch backends without changing orchestration code. Next Steps Clone the FibreOps repository and run python -m fibreops.demo --signals 3 Microsoft Agent Framework documentation Next in this series: Running Hosted Agents in Microsoft Foundry Agent ServiceLearn how to use the four IQs: Web IQ, Work IQ, Fabric IQ, Foundry IQ
We just concluded Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python, a three-part livestream series all about Microsoft IQ. We showed how to use the four IQs to ground your AI applications and agents: Work IQ: user-specific retrieval of M365 data, like Teams chats, emails, and calendar events. Fabric IQ: retrieval of data stored in OneLake, via Fabric ontologies, graphs, and data agents. Web IQ: real-time web results with super low latency Foundry IQ: multi-source agentic retrieval on search indexes plus remote sources (including Web IQ, Work IQ, and Fabric IQ) The four IQs are all exposed as MCP endpoints, so you can easily integrate into your own agents, or add to your Foundry agents via the Foundry Toolbox. Check out our code samples for Python notebooks and agents that use each of the MCP servers and APIs. All of the materials from our series are available for you to keep learning from, and linked below: Video recordings of each stream PowerPoint slides that you can use for reviewing or even teaching the material to your own community An annotated write-up of each presentation, so you can quickly read through 🙋🏽♂️ Have follow up questions? Join the weekly Python+AI office hours on Foundry Discord. Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python: Foundry IQ 📺 Watch YouTube recording In the first session, we dived into Foundry IQ (Azure AI Search), exploring how it helps agents and applications work with curated knowledge and organizational context. We built knowledge bases in Python and connected them to multiple knowledge sources, including file knowledge sources, search indexes built from ingested data, and the Web IQ MCP server. Then we performed multi-source agentic retrieval on those knowledge bases, which executes queries in parallel and merges the results with state-of-the-art ranking models. Finally, we built agents in Python using Microsoft Agent Framework and grounded their responses in Foundry IQ results three different ways: a custom tool calling the knowledge base API, the knowledge base MCP endpoint, and a Foundry Toolbox. We deployed those agents to Foundry Agent Service as hosted agents and published one to Teams. 🖼️ Slides for this session 📝 Write-up for this session 💻 Code repository with examples: iqdeepdive Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python: Work IQ 📺 Watch YouTube recording In the second session, we focused on Work IQ and how it brings workplace context into AI-powered experiences. We compared Work IQ to Microsoft Graph, then explored all three protocols it speaks — A2A, MCP, and REST — with runnable Python notebooks for each. We walked through the 10 generic tools that Work IQ exposes over MCP, including ask, which calls Microsoft 365 Copilot directly, and do_action, the only write path. We also connected Work IQ to a Foundry IQ knowledge base as a knowledge source, so a single query returns a blended answer across indexed HR documents and live work context. Then we wired Work IQ into a Microsoft Agent Framework agent as an MCP tool, and finished with Agent 365 autopilots — agents that get their own Microsoft 365 identity, mailbox, and place in the org chart, and act as themselves rather than on behalf of you. A live demo showed the Work Mate autopilot reading its own mailbox in Teams and emailing a customer directly. 🖼️ Slides for this session 📝 Write-up for this session 💻 Code repository with examples: iqdeepdive Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python: Fabric IQ 📺 Watch YouTube recording In the final session, we explored Fabric IQ and how it connects AI experiences to structured business data stored in Microsoft Fabric's OneLake. We introduced the key components of Fabric IQ — ontologies, graphs, semantic models, and data agents — and showed how each one helps describe, organize, and reason over operational data. Ontologies provide a shared business vocabulary that maps entity types, properties, and relationships to actual OneLake data. Graphs offer dedicated graph database capabilities for queries requiring extensive relationship traversal. Semantic models expose Power BI analytics through DAX measures on star-schema tables. Data agents combine all of these behind a single conversational interface that selects the right source and query language automatically. For each component, we demonstrated the Ontology MCP server and Data Agent MCP server for agent integration, and showed how to add each as a knowledge source to Foundry IQ knowledge bases for multi-source retrieval. 🖼️ Slides for this session 📝 Write-up for this session 💻 Code repository with examples: iqdeepdiveBuilding and Deploying Microsoft Hosted Agents to Microsoft Teams
A practical, engineer-to-engineer guide to taking an AI agent from a developer laptop, into Microsoft Foundry Agent Service, and out to end users inside Microsoft Teams and Microsoft 365 — using the BRK241 FibreOps reference implementation as a worked example. Introduction: the hard part is no longer building the agent Two years ago, wiring an LLM to a couple of tools felt like the summit. It isn't any more. Frameworks, hosted models, and function-calling have made the build step almost routine. The problem has quietly moved downstream. The genuinely hard questions today are operational: Where does the agent run when it's no longer on your machine? What identity does it use to call enterprise systems, and who granted it? How does a platform team scale, monitor, and roll it back? How do business users actually reach it without learning a new tool? Who signed off on it touching production data? A prototype answers none of these. A production agent platform answers all of them, repeatably, for every agent an organisation ships. That shift — from a clever notebook to a governed, observable service that lands in the tools people already use — is the subject of this article. We'll use a single narrative to keep it concrete: FibreOps, the BRK241 "Autonomous Fibre Outage Response" system. It ingests optical line terminal (OLT) telemetry, analyses incidents, files tickets in Dynamics 365 Field Service, posts Adaptive Cards to Microsoft Teams, and dispatches engineers — all through role-specialised agents. The full source is on GitHub. The story runs on three verbs: Build → Run → Distribute. Section 1: Building the agent An agent is not one mega-prompt. FibreOps is deliberately factored into three role-specialised agents behind a single orchestrator, each with its own tool surface, its own system instructions, and a strict output contract: IncidentAnalysisAgent — classifies severity, finds probable cause, and pulls the correct standard operating procedure (SOP). NetOpsCoordinatorAgent — files the D365 incident and posts the Teams outage notice. FieldDispatchAgent — selects the best engineer by skill, region and shift, books the resource, and updates Teams. The Coordinator hands off to Dispatch with a literal HANDOFF:DISPATCH token rather than a fuzzy "I think we should…". Hard contracts between agents are how you stop them inventing work. Microsoft Agent Framework The agents are built with the Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF). The key design decision in the reference implementation is that all three backends honour one contract — await agent.run(prompt) -> response — so the orchestrator never knows or cares where reasoning actually happens: local — a deterministic LocalAgent shim with no LLM, so the demo runs with zero Azure credentials. foundry — agent_framework.Agent + FoundryChatClient , definition resolved locally. Ideal while iterating on prompts. hosted — agent_framework_foundry.FoundryAgent bound to a Prompt Agent published to Foundry Agent Service. This is the production path. Building a Foundry-backed agent is just a client plus instructions plus typed tools: from agent_framework import Agent from agent_framework_foundry import FoundryChatClient from azure.identity import DefaultAzureCredential client = FoundryChatClient( project_endpoint=settings.azure_ai_project_endpoint, model=settings.azure_ai_model_deployment, # e.g. gpt-4.1-mini credential=DefaultAzureCredential(), # no connection strings, ever ) agent = Agent( client=client, instructions=INCIDENT_ANALYSIS_INSTRUCTIONS_V1, name="IncidentAnalysisAgent", tools=[lookup_sop, recall, remember, web_iq_search, work_iq_search], ) Note the DefaultAzureCredential . There are no keys or connection strings anywhere in the reasoning path — identity flows from Microsoft Entra ID. Keep that in mind; it becomes the backbone of the governance story later. Tool calling and MCP Every tool is a typed Python function. Foundry sees the JSON schema derived from the signature; the runtime executes the Python. That separation matters: the published agent definition stores only the model and instructions, while the implementations are supplied by the runtime on every call. The same in-process tools (Teams, D365, dispatch, knowledge, memory) run identically whether the agent is local or hosted. Beyond your own functions, Foundry agents can draw on hosted toolbox tools ( web_search , code_interpreter ) and Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. MCP is the open standard for exposing tools, resources and prompts to agents over a uniform protocol, so an enterprise can stand up an MCP server once and let every agent consume it. In FibreOps this is config-gated — set FIBREOPS_FOUNDRY_TOOLBOX=1 and the incident analyst gains live web search alongside its Web IQ / Work IQ connectors, with no code change. Grounding strategies FibreOps grounds reasoning three ways, in layers: Retrieval over owned knowledge — SOPs (markdown) and the fibre-node topology graph, looked up by the analysis agent. Foundry IQ — Web IQ for public context (roadworks, weather, power) and Work IQ for enterprise context (site surveys, SLA tiers, competency matrix). Procedural memory — prior incidents for a node, recalled before analysis so the agent learns from history. Crucially, when the IQ endpoints are unset the tools fall back to deterministic fixtures so the agent always grounds. Grounding that silently fails is worse than no grounding; design your fallbacks explicitly. Local development, testing and evaluation The whole system runs from one command with no cloud dependency: # Deterministic local backend — no Azure credentials required python -m fibreops.demo --signals 3 --backend local Every run is persisted as a JSON document — the input signal, every agent step, every tool call, every output, every ticket. That single artefact shape feeds three consumers: structured logs, the local optimiser, and Foundry Evaluators. The optimiser scores each run against a five-criterion rubric (was the analysis complete, was severity consistent with customer impact, did a ticket land, did dispatch policy match severity, was an SOP cited) and writes back concrete improvement suggestions. That evaluation loop — not the first working demo — is what turns a prototype into a system you can keep improving. Section 2: Deploying to Microsoft Foundry Agent Service Microsoft Foundry Agent Service is the managed runtime that hosts your agents. It gives you a secure, isolated execution environment, an agent runtime that speaks the OpenAI-compatible Responses API, plus hosted memory, toolboxes, knowledge integrations, and observability — without you operating any of it. FibreOps demonstrates the two hosting shapes Foundry offers. Shape 1 — Prompt Agents A Prompt Agent stores a model deployment plus system instructions as an immutable, versioned definition in Foundry. Publishing is a one-time step per change: from azure.ai.projects import AIProjectClient from azure.ai.projects.models import PromptAgentDefinition from azure.identity import DefaultAzureCredential pc = AIProjectClient(endpoint=endpoint, credential=DefaultAzureCredential(), allow_preview=True) pc.agents.create_version( agent_name="fibreops-incident-analysis", definition=PromptAgentDefinition( model=model_deployment, instructions=INCIDENT_ANALYSIS_INSTRUCTIONS_V1, ), description="FibreOps incident analysis agent", ) At run time you bind to the published version with a FoundryAgent , and — as noted above — the runtime supplies the tool implementations. Prompt versioning ( instructions_v1 , _v2 , _v3 ) is where the optimiser's suggestions land, closing the improvement loop inside the platform. Shape 2 — Containerised hosted agents The BRK241 hero path packages the entire analyse → coordinate → dispatch flow as a single hosted agent: a container that serves the Responses /responses contract on port 8088, deployed straight into your Foundry project. The Agent Framework agent is wrapped by ResponsesHostServer : from agent_framework_foundry_hosting import ResponsesHostServer def main() -> None: server = ResponsesHostServer(build_system_agent()) # Foundry sets the reserved PORT env var inside the sandbox server.run(host="0.0.0.0", port=8088) The container is declared in agent.yaml — kind: hosted , the image reference, the per-session sandbox size (0.5/1 Gi, 1/2 Gi or 2/4 Gi), the protocol version, and only user-declared environment variables. You never hard-code FOUNDRY_* values or the Application Insights connection string; the platform injects those at run time. Deployment registers the image as an immutable version and polls until active : details = pc.agents.create_version( agent_name="fibreops-outage-response", definition=HostedAgentDefinition( protocol_versions=[ProtocolVersionRecord( protocol=AgentProtocol.RESPONSES, version="1.0.0")], cpu="1", memory="2Gi", container_configuration=ContainerConfiguration(image=image), environment_variables={"MODEL_DEPLOYMENT_NAME": model_deployment}, ), ) From local execution to managed hosting The migration path is deliberately gentle because the contract never changes. A developer iterates locally against LocalAgent , moves to the foundry backend to test real prompts, then publish es Prompt Agents or builds and deploy-hosted s the container. The orchestrator code is byte-for-byte identical across all three. That property — same code path local for dev, hosted in Foundry for prod — is the single most important thing to preserve when designing your own agents. Scaling, memory, toolboxes, knowledge and observability Scaling — Foundry provisions a per-session sandbox and a dedicated Entra agent identity per hosted-agent version; you size the sandbox in agent.yaml and let the platform handle isolation. Memory — set FOUNDRY_MEMORY_STORE_NAME and a FoundryMemoryProvider is attached as a context provider so agents read and write learned procedures in Foundry's hosted store; unset, they use local SQLite. No code change. Toolboxes & knowledge — hosted web_search , code interpreter, MCP, and Web/Work IQ connectors are curated per role and merged with your Python tools. Observability — the agent emits OpenTelemetry spans; set APPLICATIONINSIGHTS_CONNECTION_STRING (injected by the platform for hosted agents) and every agent decision, tool call and latency is queryable in Application Insights. Section 3: IT and development responsibilities Successful agent deployments need both developer velocity and platform governance. The failure mode at either extreme is familiar: developers who can't ship because every request routes through a ticket queue, or a free-for-all where nobody can say what identity an agent runs as. The workable model draws a clean line of responsibility. Concern Developer / Agent team IT / Platform team Identity Use DefaultAzureCredential ; never embed secrets; declare the scopes the agent needs Provision the managed / Entra agent identity; own the app registration and consent Access control Request least-privilege roles for the tools the agent calls Grant RBAC at the correct scope; run role-assignment scripts; enforce approvals Security Validate inputs, handle tool failures cleanly, avoid data exfiltration in prompts Disable ACR admin, enforce managed-identity pulls, network controls, Key Vault for secrets Compliance Keep decisions explainable and replayable (the JSON run record) Data-residency, retention, audit, Responsible AI review sign-off Monitoring Emit structured traces + OTel spans; define the rubric Own Application Insights / Log Analytics, alerting, dashboards, SLOs Cost Right-size the sandbox and model deployment; cache grounding Budgets, quota, token-consumption monitoring, chargeback Lifecycle Version prompts and images; feed the optimiser back into new versions Environment promotion (dev → test → prod), rollback, deprecation The reference implementation encodes this split honestly. The Bicep template does not create role assignments, because most deployers only hold Contributor . Instead a subscription Owner runs scripts/grant-mi-roles.ps1 once to grant the App Service's identity exactly the roles it needs — Event Hubs Data Owner, Key Vault Secrets User, AcrPull, Azure AI Developer, and Cognitive Services OpenAI User — and no more. That is least privilege made operational. Section 4: Publishing to Microsoft Teams and Microsoft 365 An agent nobody can reach has no value. The final verb — Distribute — puts the agent where users already work. FibreOps reaches Teams two ways. The lightweight path: Adaptive Cards via Incoming Webhook The NetOps coordinator posts outage notices and status updates to a Teams channel as Adaptive Cards through an Incoming Webhook. Any unconfigured channel is logged to state/teams_outbox.jsonl , so the same code runs in a demo and in production — you only change the webhook target. This is the fastest way to get agent output into Teams and is ideal for notifications and human-in-the-loop review. The rich path: a declarative agent for Microsoft 365 Copilot To make the agent conversational and discoverable across Teams, Microsoft 365 Copilot and copilot.microsoft.com, FibreOps ships as a declarative agent plus an API plugin action. One command builds the sideload-ready package: python -m fibreops.demo publish-m365 --out dist/m365 # wrote declarativeAgent.json (name, description, conversation starters) # wrote fibreops-action.json (API plugin -> {base_url}/openapi.json) # wrote manifest.json (Teams app manifest) # wrote color.png / outline.png (icons) # wrote fibreops-copilot.zip (upload this) The declarative agent declares metadata, conversation starters and a capability set; the action plugin proxies tool calls to the deployed FastAPI app via its OpenAPI document. Set M365_ACTION_BASE_URL to the app's public HTTPS root before publishing — the CLI warns when the placeholder is still in effect. That single environment variable is the only thing that flips the package from demo to production. The end-to-end distribution workflow Conceptually, the artefact travels a fixed pipeline: Developer laptop │ build + test (local backend) → publish Prompt Agent / deploy hosted container ▼ Microsoft Foundry Agent Service │ hosted agent, secure sandbox, Entra agent identity, observability ▼ Teams App package (fibreops-copilot.zip) │ Teams Admin Center → Manage apps → Upload (or M365 Admin Center → Integrated apps) ▼ Microsoft 365 tenant │ admin approval, availability policy, targeted rollout ▼ End user in Teams / M365 Copilot Enterprise rollout is rarely "publish to everyone". The realistic pattern is a staged one: sideload to a pilot group, gather feedback and optimiser scores, then widen availability through Teams app-permission and app-setup policies to department, then tenant. Because the package carries publisher metadata and the declarative schema, IT can review it exactly like any other line-of-business app. Section 5: Enterprise governance Governance is not a bolt-on; in this architecture it's a property of the platform. The pillars: Entra ID integration and agent identity — every hosted agent version gets a dedicated Entra agent identity. Nothing authenticates with a shared key. DefaultAzureCredential means the same code picks up a developer's identity locally and the managed identity in production. RBAC at the right scope — roles are granted to identities, not baked into images. Deploying a hosted agent requires Azure AI Project Manager at project scope; the Foundry project identity needs AcrPull on the registry to pull the container. Least privilege is enforced, not assumed. Auditability — the JSON run record plus OpenTelemetry spans in Application Insights give you a replayable, per-incident audit trail. You can reconstruct exactly which SOP was cited, which engineer was chosen, and why severity was escalated. Data boundaries — the mock D365 is a drop-in for a real Dataverse environment; grounding sources are enterprise connectors (Work IQ) kept inside the tenant boundary. Nothing leaves the subscription without an explicit connector. Responsible AI — the Adaptive Card JSON can be pasted into the Adaptive Cards designer for governance review; the evaluation rubric makes quality measurable; explicit grounding fallbacks prevent silent failure. Production readiness — immutable versioning, one-command rollback (delete a version), managed-identity-only image pulls, and disabled ACR admin credentials are all first-class in the reference deployment. Section 6: Reference architecture The following diagram shows the production topology — users on the left, enterprise systems and controls on the right, with Foundry Agent Service at the centre hosting the agent. flowchart LR User["NOC operator / business user"] subgraph M365["Microsoft 365 tenant"] Teams["Microsoft Teams(Adaptive Cards + declarative agent)"] Copilot["Microsoft 365 Copilot"] end subgraph Foundry["Microsoft Foundry Agent Service"] Hosted["Hosted AgentOutage Response System(secure per-session sandbox)"] Runtime["Agent runtime(Responses API)"] Memory["Hosted memory + toolboxes"] end subgraph Enterprise["Enterprise data & tools"] MCP["MCP servers / web_search"] D365["Dynamics 365 Field Service"] EventHub["Azure Event Hubs(OLT telemetry)"] Knowledge["SOPs + topology + Web/Work IQ"] end subgraph Ops["Cross-cutting"] Obs["ObservabilityApp Insights / OTel"] Gov["GovernanceEntra ID · RBAC · audit"] end User --> Teams User --> Copilot Teams --> Runtime Copilot --> Runtime Runtime --> Hosted Hosted --> Memory Hosted --> MCP Hosted --> Knowledge Hosted --> D365 EventHub --> Hosted Hosted -.->|Adaptive Cards| Teams Hosted --> Obs Gov -.->|identity & policy| Foundry Gov -.->|identity & policy| Enterprise Read the solid arrows as the control/orchestration flow and the dashed arrows as governance and outbound notifications. The point of the diagram is that governance (Entra ID, RBAC, audit) applies across every component, and observability captures every agent decision — neither is optional plumbing. Section 7: What production looks like Picture the FibreOps rollout at a national fibre operator, with the four personas doing their part: Developers build the three agents and the orchestrator on their laptops against the local backend — no cloud, no credentials, deterministic tests. They tune prompts against the foundry backend, watch the optimiser rubric climb from 0.90 to 1.0 as they add the ">5,000 customers ⇒ escalate to critical" rule, and commit a new instruction version. The platform team deploys the container to Foundry Agent Service via scripts/deploy-hosted-agent.ps1 , which builds the image in ACR, pushes it, and registers an immutable version. They provision the Event Hub, Key Vault, Log Analytics and Application Insights from Bicep, and size the sandbox at 1 vCPU / 2 GiB. IT approves the workload: a subscription Owner grants the managed identity its five least-privilege roles, hardens the App Service to pull via managed identity, disables ACR admin, and signs off the Responsible AI review using the replayable run records and the Adaptive Card previews. They sideload fibreops-copilot.zip to a pilot channel first. Business users consume it inside Teams. When an OLT in London loses light, an Adaptive Card appears in the NOC channel within seconds — severity, probable cause, ticket ID, and the dispatched engineer's ETA — with no human having read a dashboard, opened a ticket, or phoned a dispatcher. If Foundry ever wobbles, the same system falls back to the deterministic local agent with an identical trace shape. Every integration but D365 is live in the demo, and D365 is a one-variable swap to a real Dataverse endpoint. That is the whole point: the demo and production differ by configuration, not by code. Key takeaways Design for one contract. If agent.run(prompt) behaves identically local, foundry-backed and hosted, migration to production is configuration, not a rewrite. Factor agents by role with hard handoff contracts. Literal tokens like HANDOFF:DISPATCH beat fuzzy natural-language handoffs and stop agents inventing work. Never embed secrets. DefaultAzureCredential + Entra agent identities give you keyless auth that works the same everywhere. Make every run replayable. A single JSON artefact that feeds logs, evaluation and audit is worth more than any dashboard. Ground explicitly, and design your fallbacks. Grounding that fails silently is a liability; deterministic fixtures keep the agent honest. Split responsibility cleanly. Developers own velocity and quality; the platform team owns identity, scale, cost and promotion. Encode the split in scripts, not tribal knowledge. Version prompts and images immutably. Rollback should be "delete a version", and the optimiser's suggestions should land as the next version. Distribute where users already are. Adaptive Cards for notifications, a declarative agent for conversation and discovery across Teams and M365 Copilot. Roll out in stages. Pilot channel → department → tenant, gated by app policies and real optimiser scores. Resources Reference implementation: github.com/leestott/BRK241-frontier Microsoft Agent Framework overview Microsoft Foundry Agent Service Hosted agents in Foundry Agent Service · Deploy a hosted agent Microsoft Teams developer platform Declarative agents for Microsoft 365 Copilot Model Context Protocol GitHub Copilot Clone the repo, run python -m fibreops.demo --signals 3 --backend local , and watch the analyse → coordinate → dispatch loop close. Then wire in your own Foundry project and take it all the way to Teams. Go build something.Your Entire Agentic AI Workflow, Now Inside VS Code: New Course Available
If you build with AI, you know the tax: jumping between a browser portal to pick a model, a terminal to run it, a separate playground to test a prompt, and finally your editor to write the code. Every context switch is a small drain on focus—and it adds up. What if the whole loop lived in the one tool you never leave? That's the promise of the Foundry Toolkit for Visual Studio Code, and it's exactly what our new VS Code Learn: Foundry Toolkit video series is here to show youBuilding AI Agents from Zero to Production
Building AI Agents from Zero to Production Most agent demos stop at "it answered my question." Production doesn't. The gap between a notebook that calls an LLM and a governed, observable, multi-agent system your organisation can actually depend on is where real engineering happens, evaluation, deployment, data sovereignty, tool governance, and cross-team interoperability. Microsoft's open-source course Building AI Agents from Zero to Production walks that entire arc in seven lessons, using one realistic use case and the Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) plus Microsoft Foundry. This post is a developer-focused tour of what it teaches, the architecture decisions behind each stage, and the code patterns that matter when you move from prototype to production. Who this is for AI engineers building their first or first production, agent system. Backend and full-stack developers integrating agents into real applications and CI/CD. Cloud architects who need data sovereignty, private networking, and governance around agent workloads. Technical leads deciding how to standardise tools and orchestration across multiple teams. The samples are Python 3.12+, served through Microsoft Foundry using GPT-5 series models (for example gpt-5.1 ). Lesson 4 adds a TypeScript/React frontend. You will want an Azure subscription and the Azure CLI. The AI Agent Development Lifecycle The course is organised around a lifecycle rather than a feature list. Each lesson is a stage, and each stage assumes the previous one is solved: # Stage The production question it answers 1 Agent Design What should each agent do, and how do they hand off? 2 Agent Development How do I build and run them with the Agent Framework? 3 Agent Evaluations How do I know they actually work — and keep working? 4 Agent Deployment How do I ship one as a hosted service with a UI and CI gate? 5 Production Hosted Agents How do I meet enterprise data, network, and governance needs? 6 Microsoft Toolbox How do I govern tools once, and reuse them across teams? 7 Multi-Agent & A2A How do agents from different teams interoperate safely? The thread running through all seven is a single scenario: a Developer Onboarding agent system that helps a new hire find the right teammates, get a sensible first task, and pull learning resources and code snippets. It is deliberately mundane, which is exactly why it exposes the production concerns that flashy demos hide. Lesson 1 — Agent Design: three components, one graph The course defines an agent by three parts: an LLM for reasoning, tools to act, and memory to retain context. The design work is context engineering — making sure the right information reaches the model at the right moment, no more and no less. Rather than one monolithic assistant, the onboarding system is split into specialists coordinated by a triage agent using handoff orchestration: Agent Job Tool Employee Search Answer org and people questions Foundry file search over an employee-directory vector store Task Recommendation Suggest 1–3 GitHub issues for the new dev GitHub MCP Server (reads recent commits + open issues) Code Assistant Provide resources and runnable snippets Microsoft Learn MCP + Code Interpreter Architecturally this is a directed graph: User → Triage → [Employee, Learning, Coding] . Splitting responsibilities early pays off later, each agent gets a tightly scoped prompt (less hallucination), can be evaluated independently, and can be upgraded without touching its peers. Lesson 2 — Development: standalone agents with MAF Here the design becomes code. Each specialist is a small, independently runnable service built with the Microsoft Agent Framework, authenticated to Foundry with your Azure CLI login. Setup is deliberately boring: az login az account set --subscription "<your-subscription-id>" cp .env.example .env # Fill FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT and FOUNDRY_MODEL (e.g. gpt-5.1) # Create the employee-directory vector store once; note the printed VECTOR_STORE_ID python lesson-2-agent-development/setup_vector_store.py # Start an agent — serves on http://localhost:8090 python lesson-2-agent-development/employee-search-agent.py The FoundryChatClient auto-reads any FOUNDRY_ -prefixed environment variables and uses AzureCliCredential , so there are no keys in code. The lesson ships six samples, each on its own port, so you can chat with them individually in the local DevUI before wiring them together: Sample Tool Port employee-search-agent.py Foundry file search / vector store 8090 task-recommendation-agent.py GitHub MCP Server 8095 azure-learning-agent.py Microsoft Learn MCP 8092 coding-agent.py Code Interpreter 8093 learning-recommendation-agent.py Learn MCP + reasoning 8091 agent-orchestration.py Multi-agent handoff 8094 Why this matters: keeping each agent as its own process with its own port is a testability decision, not an accident. You can smoke-test one specialist in isolation, then compose them in agent-orchestration.py . Lesson 3 — Evaluation: you can't unit-test a probability distribution This is the lesson that separates a demo from a product. Agents are non-deterministic, so traditional assertions don't fit. The course uses three complementary layers: Observability / tracing — always on, via OpenTelemetry to Application Insights. Smoke tests — fast, run on every deploy. Evaluations — deeper, model-based scoring run on-demand or nightly. Turning on tracing is a single call: from agent_framework.foundry import FoundryChatClient client = FoundryChatClient() client.configure_azure_monitor() # export traces + metrics to Application Insights For quality it uses Foundry's built-in "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluators against real persisted responses (identified by response_id ), not freshly regenerated ones: Evaluator evaluator_name Measures Relevance builtin.relevance Does the response address the request? Groundedness builtin.groundedness Is it supported by retrieved data (no hallucination)? Tool-call accuracy builtin.tool_call_accuracy Were the right tools called with the right arguments? Tool-output utilization builtin.tool_output_utilization Did the agent actually use tool results? The judge model is set independently via AZURE_AI_MODEL_DEPLOYMENT_NAME , so you can evaluate a cheap production model with a stronger one. The run prints a report_url that deep-links into the Foundry portal. Lesson 4 — Deployment: a hosted agent, a UI, and a CI gate Now the agent becomes a managed service. It is deployed as a Foundry Hosted Agent a Microsoft-managed execution environment and fronted by an OpenAI ChatKit React UI talking to a FastAPI backend: ChatKit React (3000) → FastAPI backend (8001) → Foundry Hosted Agent → tools Building the agent is declarative attach tools, name it, serve it: agent = client.as_agent( name="DevOnboardingAgent", instructions="...", tools=[file_search_tool, learn_mcp_tool], ) # served with: from_agent_framework(agent).run() The recommended deploy path is the Azure Developer CLI: cd hosted-agent azd auth login azd agent deploy The genuinely production-minded part is the smoke test as a post-deploy CI gate. Six cases cover reachability, each scenario, off-topic prompt adherence, and multi-turn threading (verifying state via previous_response_id ). The GitHub Action runs them against the freshly deployed agent: export FOUNDRY_TOKEN=$(az account get-access-token \ --resource https://ai.azure.com/ --query accessToken -o tsv) python runner.py \ --project-endpoint "https://<account>.services.ai.azure.com/api/projects/<project>" \ --agent-name dev-onboarding \ --tests-file tests/smoke-tests.json Pitfall to remember: the token audience must be https://ai.azure.com/ . A cognitiveservices.azure.com token is rejected by the Responses API — a mistake that costs many engineers an afternoon. Lesson 5 — Production: separating where an agent runs from where its data lives The pivotal concept for enterprise readiness is the distinction between a Hosted Agent (compute, scaling, identity) and a Capability Host (where conversation history, files, and embeddings actually reside): Concern Hosted Agent Capability Host Compute / scaling / identity ✅ Provided — Conversation history Microsoft-managed default Redirect to your Azure Cosmos DB File uploads Microsoft-managed default Redirect to your Azure Storage Vector embeddings Microsoft-managed default Redirect to your Azure AI Search Required to run the agent? ✅ Yes ❌ Optional Required for data sovereignty? ❌ Not sufficient ✅ Yes "Basic" setup uses Microsoft-managed storage and is perfect for getting started. "Standard" setup redirects each data plane to your own Azure resources through a project-level capability host, this is how you keep customer data in your tenant, inside your network boundary: PUT .../accounts/{account}/projects/{project}/capabilityHosts/{name}?api-version=2025-06-01 { "properties": { "capabilityHostKind": "Agents", "threadStorageConnections": ["my-cosmosdb-connection"], "vectorStoreConnections": ["my-ai-search-connection"], "storageConnections": ["my-storage-connection"] } } Operational constraints worth internalising before you provision: there is one capability host per scope (a second attempt returns 409 Conflict ), configuration is immutable (delete and recreate to change it), deletion is destructive, and the account-level host must exist before the project-level one. Lesson 6 — Toolbox: govern tools once, reuse everywhere Left unchecked, every team re-implements the same tools, scatters credentials, and loses governance visibility. The Microsoft Foundry Toolbox solves this by exposing a curated, versioned set of tools behind a single MCP-compatible endpoint, with credentials held in Foundry connections rather than agent code. You build a toolbox version once: from azure.ai.projects.models import MCPTool, ToolboxSearchPreviewTool, WebSearchTool toolbox_version = project.toolboxes.create_toolbox_version( name="agent-tools", description="Web search + an MCP server + tool search", tools=[ WebSearchTool(), MCPTool( server_label="myserver", server_url="https://your-mcp-server.example.com", require_approval="never", project_connection_id="my-key-auth-connection", # credentials live in Foundry ), ToolboxSearchPreviewTool(), ], ) And every agent consumes it through one endpoint, no per-team tool code: from agent_framework import MCPStreamableHTTPTool mcp_tool = MCPStreamableHTTPTool( name="toolbox", url=TOOLBOX_ENDPOINT, # {project_endpoint}/toolboxes/{name}/mcp?api-version=v1 http_client=http_client, load_prompts=False, ) agent = chat_client.as_agent(name="my-toolbox-agent", instructions="...", tools=[mcp_tool]) Versioning is blue/green: create a new version, test it on its version-specific endpoint, then promote it to default and every consumer picks it up with zero code changes. A Guardrail (RAI) policy can be applied at the toolbox layer, independent of model-level content filters. Note the toolbox management APIs are currently preview; the portal or VS Code Foundry Toolkit are practical alternatives for creation today. Lesson 7 — Multi-Agent & A2A: agents as networked peers The final lesson contrasts two ways agents collaborate: Handoff / Workflow — in-process, same codebase, fastest, tightest coupling. Agent-to-Agent (A2A) — cross-process over an open protocol, so agents from different teams, orgs, or frameworks interoperate. A2A gives each agent a discoverable Agent Card at /.well-known/agent-card.json and a task lifecycle (submitted → working → completed/failed). The elegant part: A2AExecutor wraps an existing MAF agent with no changes to that agent's code. from agent_framework.a2a import A2AExecutor from a2a.server.apps import A2AStarletteApplication from a2a.server.tasks import InMemoryTaskStore agent_card = AgentCard( name="Coding Assistant", url="http://localhost:9000/", version="1.0.0", capabilities=AgentCapabilities(streaming=True), skills=[AgentSkill(id="generate-code", name="Generate code", tags=["code"])], ) request_handler = DefaultRequestHandler( agent_executor=A2AExecutor(agent), # wraps your existing MAF agent unchanged task_store=InMemoryTaskStore(), ) app = A2AStarletteApplication(agent_card=agent_card, http_handler=request_handler).build() Consuming a remote agent then looks exactly like calling a local one: from agent_framework.a2a import A2AAgent remote_agent = A2AAgent(name="remote-coding-assistant", url="http://localhost:9000") result = await remote_agent.run("Write a Python function that reverses a string.") Because an A2AAgent can be a participant inside a HandoffBuilder workflow, you can mix in-process routing with remote services in the same orchestration. For enterprise use, A2AAgent accepts an auth_interceptor for bearer tokens, and the Agent Card carries security_schemes . Responsible and secure by design Production readiness in this course is not just uptime, it is governance: Identity over keys — AzureCliCredential and managed identity throughout; no secrets in code. Least privilege — CI runners get a scoped Azure AI User role assignment on the specific project. Data sovereignty — capability hosts keep conversation history, files, and embeddings in your own Cosmos DB, Storage, and AI Search. Tool approval and guardrails — MCP approval_mode and toolbox-level RAI policy gate what agents can do. Grounded evaluation — groundedness and tool-utilization scoring catch hallucination and unused-tool behaviour before users do. Cost hygiene — the lessons create real Azure resources; delete the resource group when done: az group delete --name <rg> --yes --no-wait . Key takeaways Design as a graph of specialists. Handoff orchestration with tightly scoped agents beats one monolith on reliability and testability. One .run() contract, many backends. The Agent Framework keeps orchestration code stable from local dev to hosted production. Evaluate continuously. Tracing + smoke tests + model-based evaluators are three layers, not alternatives. Separate compute from data. Hosted Agents run the agent; Capability Hosts give you sovereignty — you need both for enterprise. Govern tools centrally. A versioned toolbox behind one MCP endpoint kills tool sprawl and credential duplication. Open protocols for interop. A2A lets agents cross team, org, and framework boundaries without rewrites. Get started Clone the repo (skip the 50+ translations for a faster download) and work through the lessons in order: git clone --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/microsoft/Building-AI-Agents-From-Zero-To-Production.git cd Building-AI-Agents-From-Zero-To-Production git sparse-checkout set --no-cone '/*' '!translations' '!translated_images' References Building AI Agents from Zero to Production — course repo Microsoft Agent Framework Microsoft Foundry documentation Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol specification a2a-python SDK AI Agents for Beginners MCP for Beginners Microsoft Foundry DiscordCreating Autonomous Teams Agents Using OpenClaw, MCP, and Azure Container Apps
The one shift that changes everything For two years, "AI coding" meant autocomplete. A suggestion appears in your editor, you hit tab, you move on. The agent only existed while you were actively typing. That is no longer the only model. A new category of tools runs asynchronously and autonomously: you message the agent from a chat window — Teams, Slack, Telegram — describe what you want, and walk away. The agent plans, writes code, runs tests, deploys, and hands you back a result. Some of them never sleep: they hold a persistent memory, load their own skills, and act on a schedule without being prompted. This is the world of OpenClaw, Hermes Agent, and the other long-running autonomous agents that exploded across developer culture in 2026. OpenClaw alone crossed 377,000 GitHub stars and millions of active users, becoming — for a while — the most-starred project on GitHub. You install it with one line, connect a channel, and start delegating from your phone. The workflow moves from pair programming to delegation and review. The interactive copilot asks, "What should I write next?" The autonomous agent asks, "What do you need done?" And that reframing is exactly why three questions now keep architects awake: Is it safe? You are handing a self-driving process the ability to run shell commands, touch files, and call APIs. One community report memorably described these agents as a teammate in your group chat who happens to have root access to your codebase. That is not a compliment — it is a threat model. Can it fit into real multi-agent work? A single agent is a demo. Production is a fleet — specialists that hand off to each other with gates in between. Is it flexible and controllable? Autonomy is thrilling right up until the agent packages last week's stale files into this week's deliverable, or loops forever on a failing test. This post answers all three — not with hand-waving, but with a working reference implementation you can clone today: CustomCodingAgentApp in the Multi-AI-Agents-Cloud-Native repo, an "Agentic Prototype Factory" that turns a plain-language idea into a tested, live-on-Azure prototype without leaving the chat window. A product manager types "Build a BBC-style World Cup feature page" in Microsoft Teams. Minutes later they get back a running HTTPS URL and a downloadable source ZIP. Under the hood, five specialized OpenClaw agents powered by Microsoft Foundry gpt-5.5 collaborate in a shared sandbox, run real pytest/Jest suites, and ship the result to Azure Container Apps — all orchestrated behind a Model Context Protocol (MCP) service so any MCP client (GitHub Copilot, Claude, the Teams bot) can drive it. We'll build up to that architecture in the order you should learn it. Part 1 — Long-running autonomous agents, and their two hard problems What actually makes them different A traditional chatbot is text in, text out. It waits for you. An autonomous agent inverts that: Property Traditional chatbot Long-running autonomous agent Execution Responds to a prompt Acts proactively (a "heartbeat" wakes it on a schedule) Scope Words Files, shell, browser, APIs — the real machine Memory This session only Persistent across sessions Interface A web box Any chat channel + the terminal Autonomy None Plans and takes multi-step action on its own Architecturally, OpenClaw is not a library you import — it's a runtime. A single long-running process (the Gateway) bridges your messaging channels to an LLM backend, keeps sessions alive, queues work in ordered lanes, and drives the classic agent loop: call the model → execute the tool calls it asks for → feed results back → repeat until done. There is no rigid step-planner; the model itself steers. That is what makes it feel magical — and what makes it hard to contain. That containment problem has two faces. Hard problem #1 — Security The same properties that make an autonomous agent useful make it dangerous. Full system access + proactive execution + a 32,000-server tool ecosystem is a large, self-driving attack surface. OpenClaw's own short history is the cautionary tale: a critical one-click remote-code-execution CVE early in its life, hundreds of malicious community "skills" discovered on its marketplace, and tens of thousands of gateways found exposed on the open internet. None of this means "don't use autonomous agents." It means: never run one with ambient credentials on a machine you care about. The agent belongs in a box with a hard wall around it. Hard problem #2 — Persistence and continuity Real agent work is long. Refactoring a codebase, researching across dozens of pages, building-testing-deploying an app — these take minutes to hours, far past a single request/response. So the runtime needs durable sessions, a place to keep state, and a workspace that survives across steps. But a persistent workspace that is reused creates its own hazard: state leakage. Files from yesterday's task can contaminate — or get shipped inside — today's result. Continuity and cleanliness pull in opposite directions, and you have to engineer the tension out. One agent is a demo; production is a fleet A single monolithic agent asked to "gather requirements, write the code, test it, deploy it, and package it" will do all four mediocrely and blur the boundaries between them. The production pattern is orchestrator-worker: specialized agents, each with one job, handing off to the next through explicit gates. OpenClaw supports exactly this — it can spawn sub-agents and even dispatch external coding harnesses, acting as a meta-orchestrator rather than a single model. The open question is never whether to go multi-agent; it's where the seams and the guardrails go. The answer to "is it safe?": put the agent in a microVM If the agent needs root to be useful, then give it root — inside a disposable microVM, not on your host. In 2026 there are several credible ways to do this: Kata Containers on AKS — each pod gets its own lightweight VM boundary and guest kernel. Hyperlight Wasm — per-call, snapshot-restored Wasm microVMs for running LLM-generated code. Azure Container Apps dynamic sessions — prewarmed, Hyper-V-isolated sandboxes that start in milliseconds, scale to thousands, and are purpose-built for "secure execution of custom code" and "running LLM-generated scripts." That last one — the ACA sandbox — is the sweet spot for a chat-driven agent factory: strong isolation without you operating a Kubernetes cluster, and an exec API to run commands inside the box. It's what the reference implementation uses. Part 2 — Putting OpenClaw into the ACA sandbox Here is where the repo stops being a diagram and becomes running code. The Agentic Prototype Factory decomposes the "idea → live app" job into five specialized OpenClaw agents that run in sequence, all inside the sandbox: requirements → coding → testing → deployment → save Each is addressable as its own model target on the OpenClaw gateway's OpenAI-compatible API: model value Routes to openclaw / openclaw/default Default agent openclaw/requirements-agent Requirement Agent openclaw/coding-agent Coding Agent openclaw/testing-agent Testing Agent openclaw/deployment-agent Deployment Agent openclaw/save-agent Save & download Agent Control, not vibes: review gates with feedback loops Autonomy without gates is how you get an agent that confidently deploys a broken app. The orchestrator wires the five agents into a graph with hard, bounded gates: Every knob is explicit and lives in server.py: _MAX_TEST_ROUNDS = 3, _MAX_DEPLOY_REVIEW = 2, _DEPLOY_POLL_ATTEMPTS = 12, _DEPLOY_POLL_DELAY_S = 20. The Testing Agent must end each turn with a literal TESTS_PASSED / TESTS_FAILED verdict; the orchestrator won't declare success until it HTTP-checks the deployed URL and inspects the response body — because a ResourceNotFound can happily return an HTTP 200. That is what "flexible and controllable" looks like in practice: the LLM drives creatively inside a deterministic state machine. The deterministic pre-run wipe (solving state leakage) Because the sandbox is reused across runs (fast, cheap), the orchestrator does something disciplined before every run: it wipes all lingering agent workspaces. Stale files from a previous task can never leak into — or be packaged as — the new result. This is the engineered answer to Hard Problem #2. Working with the sandbox's limits, not against them The ACA sandbox exec API is hard-capped at ~120 seconds — shorter than a cold az acr build plus az containerapp create. A naive agent would time out and report failure. The clever bit: those commands finish server-side on Azure even after the client exec disconnects. So deployment is split in two: deploy-build <dir> <app> — installs the deploy helpers, writes a tight .dockerignore, and kicks off the ACR build tagged <app>:latest. If the client drops at ~120s, the image still lands in ACR. deploy-finish <app> — idempotent, polled up to 12×. It reports STILL_BUILDING until the image exists, then fires a --no-wait containerapp create, and finally returns DEPLOYED_URL=https://<fqdn>. This is the single most important lesson of the whole sample: an autonomous agent doesn't need a longer timeout — it needs to understand the durability semantics of the platform it runs on. Part 3 — MCP, and why its security is the whole ballgame The five-agent workflow is powerful, but it would be a silo if the only way to reach it were a bespoke API. Instead, the repo wraps the entire orchestration as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) service (acamcp_node) exposed over streamable HTTP at /mcp, with a tiny, legible tool surface: MCP tool What it does generate_prototype Run the full five-agent workflow end to end run_agent Invoke a single named agent check_gateway_health Liveness / readiness of the OpenClaw gateway The payoff is enormous: any MCP client can now drive the factory — GitHub Copilot, Claude, or the Teams bot we're about to meet. One protocol, many front-ends. But MCP is not just an integration convenience — it's a control plane, and every MCP tool is a privileged capability. In an ecosystem with 32,000+ community servers, "just add an MCP server" is a supply-chain decision. A tool call is code execution by another name. So the security posture has to be deliberate. Here is how the reference implementation hardens it — and the principles are portable to any MCP deployment: Auth in front of the protocol. The MCP ingress sits behind basic auth (MCP_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD); the gateway itself requires the gateway token as a bearer credential (Authorization: Bearer <token>). No anonymous tool calls. A tiny, named allowlist — not a blank check. The gateway routes only to six explicit model targets. There is no "run arbitrary agent" escape hatch; the routing table is the allowlist. No secrets in the workload. There are no model API keys anywhere in the running containers — model access is brokered entirely through Entra ID managed identities. The gateway token is stored as a Kubernetes secret and never baked into an image. Private by default. The gateway's OpenAI-compatible endpoint is operator-level access — it stays on private ingress, with TLS and authentication added before anything is ever exposed publicly. Least privilege at the identity layer. The gateway is granted exactly the Foundry roles it needs (Cognitive Services User / Cognitive Services OpenAI User) on the Foundry resource — nothing more. The takeaway for MCP is the same as for the agent itself: treat the protocol as a doorway, and put a guard on the door. Authentication, an explicit allowlist, private ingress, and brokered identity turn MCP from an open blast radius into a governed control plane. Part 4 — The complete solution: Teams + MCP on ACA + OpenClaw on the ACA sandbox Now assemble the three deployable components into one loop: The request lifecycle, end to end A PM sends one sentence in Teams. The teamsbot_app bot — acting as an MCP client via mcpClient.ts — opens an MCP handshake and calls generate_prototype. The MCP service on ACA (acamcp_node) runs the orchestrator: pre-run wipe, then requirements → coding → testing. The OpenClaw gateway in the ACA sandbox (acasbxapp_node) executes each agent, talking to Foundry gpt-5.5 through a managed identity — no keys in the box. Real pytest + Jest suites run inside the sandbox. Fail → loop back (bounded). Pass → deploy. Deployment uses the build + poll split to survive the ~120s exec cap; the app lands in Azure Container Apps and is health-checked body-aware at its live URL. The Save Agent produces an authenticated ZIP download URL. The bot streams each agent's progress back into the Teams thread and returns the running HTTPS URL + source ZIP — optionally auto-opening the project in VS Code Insiders. How the architecture answers the three questions The question How this solution answers it Is it safe? The autonomous agent runs in a Hyper-V-isolated ACA sandbox, not on anyone's laptop. No model keys in the workload — Entra ID managed identity brokers Foundry. MCP behind basic auth; gateway behind a bearer token on private ingress; token as a secret, never in an image. A deterministic pre-run wipe removes cross-run leakage. Does it fit multi-agent work? It is a multi-agent system — five specialist OpenClaw agents with A2A hand-offs and review gates — and because it's exposed via MCP, any client (Copilot, Claude, Teams) can orchestrate it. Is it flexible and controllable? Creativity lives inside a deterministic state machine: explicit TESTS_PASSED/FAILED verdicts, bounded retry loops (_MAX_TEST_ROUNDS, _MAX_DEPLOY_REVIEW), body-aware health checks, and a human approving in the Teams thread. Deploy it yourself The repo ships scripts for all three tiers (the gateway uses the platform's managed identity to reach Foundry — no key handling, no image rebuild): # 1) OpenClaw gateway + the 5 agents (acasbxapp_node) cd acasbxapp_node cp .env.example .env # gateway token, Foundry endpoint, sandbox ids ./scripts/build-openclaw-image.sh # build + push the OpenClaw image to ACR ./scripts/deploy-aks-gateway.sh # grant Foundry roles + deploy # 2) MCP service (acamcp_node) cd ../acamcp_node cp .env.example .env # ACR + cluster; gateway token read from ../acasbxapp_node/.env ./scripts/build-images.sh # build + push the MCP image ./scripts/deploy-aks.sh # secret + manifests to the openclaw namespace ./scripts/smoke-check.sh # verify the MCP handshake # 3) Teams bot (teamsbot_app) — Node.js/TypeScript MCP client cd ../teamsbot_app # configure + run per the folder README, then sideload the Teams app package The reference implementation targets Azure (ACA + AKS) — the OpenClaw gateway and MCP service run as containers, and the code-execution sandbox uses the ACA dynamic-sessions exec API. Keep the gateway on private ingress and add TLS before any public exposure. Final thought Strip away the World Cup demo and a reusable pattern remains — a blueprint for running any long-running autonomous agent in the enterprise: A message-driven agent (OpenClaw / Hermes) + a microVM sandbox (Azure Container Apps dynamic sessions) + an MCP control plane with auth + enterprise identity (Entra ID managed identity) + a human surface (Microsoft Teams). The autonomy that made these agents go viral is the same autonomy that makes security teams nervous. You don't resolve that tension by slowing the agent down — you resolve it by giving it a box with a hard wall, a control plane with a guard on the door, an identity instead of a secret, and a human in the loop. Do that, and "your PM types a sentence, Azure ships an app" stops being a scary demo and becomes something you can actually put in production. Clone it, break it, harden it further: kinfey/Multi-AI-Agents-Cloud-Native → code/CustomCodingAgentApp The chat window is the new terminal. Let's make it a safe one.Token Economics: The New FinOps for Agentic AI
In AI applications, tokens are now cost — and token economics deserves architectural attention For a long time, AI application design started with model capability: Can the model write code? Can it reason? Can it use tools? Can it handle long context? Those questions still matter, but in the age of agentic applications, they are no longer sufficient. The more important production question is this: How many tokens does the architecture burn to complete one useful task? A classic chat application often maps one user turn to one model call. An agentic system is different. One user goal can trigger planning, retrieval, tool selection, tool execution, result interpretation, reflection, repair, and summarization. The user sees one instruction; the system may execute dozens of model calls behind the scenes. Tokens are no longer just a measure of text length. They become a measure of system design, runtime behavior, developer workflow, and business cost. GitHub Copilot’s 2026 move to usage-based billing through GitHub AI Credits captures the industry shift clearly. Usage is now aligned with token consumption, including input, output, and cached tokens. That matters because Copilot has evolved from an in-editor assistant into an agentic platform that can handle long, multi-step coding sessions across repositories. In that world, a tiny prompt and a multi-hour autonomous coding workflow should not be treated as the same economic unit. Token economics is therefore not about telling developers to “write shorter prompts.” It is about designing systems where: useful context is preserved, while noise is removed; repeated context is cached or deduplicated; simple tasks do not pay for frontier models; short-term state is managed structurally instead of copied repeatedly; every model call is metered, comparable, and governed. In short: token economics is the practice of making agentic AI economically sustainable. Scenario thinking: GitHub Copilot billing, Copilot SDK, GPT-5.5, Anthropic, and MAI-Code Model The new GitHub Copilot billing model provides a useful framing for developers. Copilot is no longer only autocomplete. It is becoming a programmable agentic platform. It can use models, call tools, work across files, stream responses, and participate in long-running coding workflows. With the GitHub Copilot SDK, developers can embed that agentic runtime into their own applications, services, and developer tools. That is powerful, but it also changes the cost model. Once an agent loop becomes programmable, token cost also needs to become programmable. If a system can plan, call tools, edit files, retry, repair, and summarize, it also needs to meter, route, cache, compress, and evaluate. EvalAgentic gives this idea a concrete playground. The project groups models into cost and capability tiers: Tier Example models Example price / 1K tokens Typical use LARGE claude-opus-4.8, gpt-5.5 $0.030 Agents, code generation, multi-step reasoning MID gpt-5.4-mini $0.012 Dialogue, summarization, extraction TINY gpt-5-mini $0.001 Classification, keyword matching, rule-like tasks This tiering lets us reason about real scenarios: GPT-5.5-class models are valuable for hard reasoning and engineering workflows, but they should not be the default for every step. Using a frontier model for simple classification is like hiring a principal architect to label folders. Anthropic high-capability models can be excellent for complex reasoning and coding, but they benefit from routing discipline. Requirements analysis, test interpretation, deployment explanation, and code generation may not need the same model tier. MAI-Code Model-style coding models should be treated as specialized capability layers. Their value is not just “better code generation”; it is deciding when code-specialized intelligence should be invoked in a larger agent pipeline. The real question is not “Which model is the best?” It is: Which model is the most economical and reliable for this step of this workflow? Four engineering techniques for saving tokens Context Compression: turn long text into executable structure Implementation principle Context Compression converts long natural-language context into the structured information an agent actually needs. Business documents are often verbose: resumes, contracts, product manuals, requirements, and support logs contain narrative text, boilerplate, repeated explanations, and low-value context. The next agent step may only need a few fields. EvalAgentic demonstrates this with a long resume-like input that is compressed into a compact JSON object. Instead of injecting the full original text into every prompt, the system extracts key fields and dynamically injects only the data required by the current task. A practical compression pipeline includes: Redundancy detection — identify long-tail text, repeated descriptions, stale history, and low-value context. Structured extraction — use Copilot or a mid-tier model to transform prose into JSON, tables, or typed schemas. Dynamic injection — inject only the fields needed for the next step. Recoverable references — preserve source pointers so compressed context remains auditable. How to evaluate Prompt token reduction before and after compression. Answer quality and task success rate. Schema fidelity and missing-field rate. Latency improvement. Cost per successful task. Compression is not summarization. Summaries are designed for humans. Structured compression is designed for agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache: stop paying twice for the same context Implementation principle Many agent systems waste tokens because they repeatedly send the same context. The same resume, contract, repository README, user profile, API documentation, or business rule can be copied across turns and agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache applies a simple principle: if context has already been processed, do not pay to process it again unless it has changed. A concrete design includes: compute a hash or semantic key for source context; reuse extracted structured results when content is identical or equivalent; apply a TTL for repeated entities, such as the 24-hour cache pattern shown in EvalAgentic; organize stable prompt prefixes to benefit from provider-level prompt caching where available; store shared context in an artifact store or memory layer so multiple agents do not copy the same blob. How to evaluate Cache hit rate. Cached token ratio. Duplicate prompt rate. Cost delta before and after caching. Correctness under cache, especially stale-cache failures. Caching is not “save everything forever.” Good caching knows when to reuse and when to invalidate. On-Demand Model Routing: let task complexity decide model tier Implementation principle On-Demand Model Routing routes each request to the cheapest model that can complete the task reliably. The entry point can use a rule tree, a lightweight classifier, or a hybrid complexity score. EvalAgentic’s routing tree is intentionally easy to explain: INCOMING REQUEST └─ Prompt < 500 tokens? ── YES ─→ TINY: classify / extract └─ NO ──→ multi-step reasoning? ├─ NO ─→ MID: dialogue / summary └─ YES ─→ LARGE: agent / code The engineering logic is straightforward: simple classification and keyword matching go to TINY; summarization and structured conversion go to MID; multi-step reasoning, coding, cross-file changes, and orchestration go to LARGE; code-specialized models such as MAI-Code Model can be placed in the coding phase rather than used across the whole pipeline. How to evaluate Routing accuracy. Cost per route. Quality regression by tier. Escalation rate from small models to larger models. End-to-end success rate. Routing does not mean “always use the smallest model.” It means frontier intelligence is reserved for the steps where it actually changes the outcome. Short-term Memory: preserve state instead of replaying history Implementation principle Short-term Memory controls context growth across multi-turn and multi-agent workflows. Without it, agents often replay the full conversation history, full tool outputs, and full intermediate reasoning on every turn. The context grows; quality may not improve; the bill definitely does. A better design stores state structurally: user goal; current plan; tool outputs and references; failure reasons; next actions; handoff artifacts between agents. In a multi-agent coding pipeline, the Requirements Agent should hand off a structured spec. The Coding Agent should read that spec, not the entire prior conversation. The Testing Agent should consume testable artifacts, not every word produced by the Coding Agent. How to evaluate Context growth curve across turns. Memory retrieval precision. Rework rate caused by missing state. Recovery quality after failed steps. Average input tokens per turn. Short-term memory is not about remembering everything. It is about remembering the next useful thing. EvalAgentic as a concrete evaluation example EvalAgentic is effective as an evangelism project because it turns token economics into an observable before/after system. The architecture has five layers: Frontend — frontend/index.html provides Tabs A / B / C, live SSE logs, and before/after charts. API — backend/server.py exposes FastAPI routes and Server-Sent Events streaming. Orchestration — eval.py handles A/B evaluation; coding_agents.py handles the multi-agent coding scenario. Core — compressor.py, router.py, gh_models.py, and token_meter.py implement compression, routing, Copilot SDK calls, and token metering. Providers — GitHub Copilot SDK and Microsoft Agent Framework provide model access and agent orchestration. Tab A: Compression comparison Tab A compares long-form context before and after structured compression. The key message is that token saving does not come from writing a clever sentence. It comes from converting verbose context into a structured artifact that downstream agents can consume efficiently. Tab B: On-demand model routing Tab B demonstrates that cost is not only about raw token count. If a system routes simple tasks to cheaper tiers and reserves expensive models for complex reasoning, total cost can fall even if some token counts increase. This is a subtle but important point: token economics is not token starvation; it is model portfolio optimization. Tab C: Coding scenario — multi-agent with Agent Framework Tab C is the most persuasive demo. The same deliverable — a Taobao-like goods-list site with HTML + JavaScript frontend, Flask backend, and Docker deployment — is produced twice by a four-agent pipeline: Requirements Agent; Coding Agent; Testing Agent; Deployment Agent. The before pipeline uses no compression and sends every agent to GPT-5.5 / LARGE. The after pipeline injects a compressed JSON spec and uses on-demand routing: requirements can use MID, coding can use LARGE, testing can use MID, and deployment can use TINY. This mirrors real enterprise development. Architecture and complex code generation may deserve frontier models. Test interpretation, deployment packaging, and simple validation often do not. Summary and refinement based on the project diagrams The EvalAgentic README describes three important visuals: the architecture flow, the routing tree, and the token-meter design. Together, they form a governance loop: User Scenario ↓ Context Compression ↓ Prompt Deduplication / Cache ↓ On-Demand Model Routing ↓ Short-term Memory ↓ Token Metering & Budget Actions ↓ Before / After Evaluation Optimize the path, not only the prompt Many teams start token optimization by editing prompt wording. That helps, but the largest waste usually lives in the execution path: how many calls are made, how much context is repeated, how often tools retry, and whether every step uses the same expensive model. EvalAgentic makes the path visible through A/B comparisons. Token Meter is the control plane of cost governance EvalAgentic’s token_meter.py uses a non-invasive interceptor pattern: INTERCEPTOR (@token_meter) ↓ COUNTER CORE: accounting / budget threshold / trigger ↓ ACTION HUB: throttle (>80% budget) / rollback (>budget) This is the right architectural instinct. Production systems need thresholds, throttling, rollback, and traceability. Without those controls, one retry loop can quietly turn a small user request into a budget incident. Cost metrics must be evaluated with quality metrics A system that cuts cost by 80% but drops success rate by 50% is not optimized. It is broken more cheaply. The evaluation matrix should combine cost, quality, latency, and reliability: Dimension Metric Why it matters Cost Cost per successful task Measures the real unit economics Token Input / output / cached tokens Identifies compression and cache opportunities Quality Pass rate / regression rate Ensures cheaper tiers do not break outcomes Efficiency Latency / retry count Prevents cheap models from causing expensive retries Governance Budget breach / rollback count Validates runtime control Narrative A simple three-line narrative works well for demos: Token is no longer a technical detail. It is the bill of your architecture. EvalAgentic shows the same scenario before and after cost-aware design. The goal is not to make models cheaper; the goal is to make agent systems economically governable. For a developer audience, the sharper version is: A good agent does not use the biggest model everywhere. It uses the right intelligence at the right step, with the right context, under the right budget. Practical recommendations for real projects Establish a token baseline first. Measure input, output, retries, tool calls, and cost per scenario before optimizing. Make compression a component, not a prompt habit. Define schemas, cache policies, and fallback behavior. Introduce a model routing matrix. Route by task type, complexity, risk, latency, and cost. Define handoff contracts between agents. Pass structured artifacts, not endless conversation history. Evaluate every optimization with A/B tests. Compare cost, quality, latency, and stability. Add budget actions. Throttle at a threshold, rollback on breach, and add circuit breakers for failed retries. Closing: token economics is the second curve of agent engineering The first phase of AI application development was about calling models. The second phase was about putting models into products. The next phase of agentic AI is about running those systems reliably, affordably, and governably. EvalAgentic matters because it turns Context Compression, Prompt Deduplication / Cache, On-Demand Model Routing, and Short-term Memory into something developers can run, compare, and explain. It moves token economics from opinion to instrumentation. Future AI applications will not only ask: How smart is this agent? They will ask: How many tokens does it spend per completed task? Which model did it use? Did it hit cache? Did retries run away? Did the system reserve frontier intelligence for the steps that deserved it? References kinfey/EvalAgentic GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing Updates to GitHub Copilot billing and plans Copilot SDK - GitHub Docs
My Journey with Azure SRE Agent
Introduction A customer came to me with a problem that many organisations have. They control their infrastructure through Infrastructure as Code, but there are often scenarios where an admin needs to go in and make a change - even though they would ideally not want this to happen. The use an Entra feature Privileged Identity Management (PIM). Users statically don't have contributor access to Azure resources, but PIM allows them to elevate their access for a period of time. As part of PIM, the admin needs to give a reason for the elevation. Wouldn't it be good if an agent of some sort could look at this reason, then look at what the user actually did and make an assessment on whether what they did aligned with the reason given? Then alert if not. I initially built Python agents to handle this, but as with many "build vs. buy" decisions, I eventually discovered that Azure SRE Agent (in preview at the time of writing) could do what I needed – and more. This blog chronicles my journey from initial scepticism to building a fully autonomous PIM elevation audit agent. Along the way, I learned valuable lessons about what SRE Agent is designed for, how to work with its tooling model, and the difference between interactive exploration and production automation. The Starting Point: Python Agents and the Buy vs. Build Decision Before discovering SRE Agent, I had functional Python scripts that queried Azure Audit Logs and Activity Logs to correlate PIM activations with actual Azure operations. They worked, but they required maintenance, error handling, scheduling infrastructure, and ongoing attention. When I heard about Azure SRE Agent's capabilities as an autonomous monitoring platform, I decided to investigate. The decision: If there's a choice between buy versus build, buy should win – especially when the "buy" option is a managed Azure service with built-in security, monitoring, and integration capabilities. First Impressions: The Interactive Front End One of the first features that caught my attention was SRE Agent's chat interface. Unlike my static Python scripts, I could have conversational interactions with the agent, refining queries and exploring my Azure environment in natural language. This was powerful for discovery and prototyping. Initial Success (and Failure) When I first asked SRE Agent to analyse PIM elevation patterns, the results were... disappointing. The agent couldn't initially answer my PIM elevation questions effectively. However, this is where the interactive experience shone: through. With coaching in an interactive session, I could: - Explain what PIM activation events look like in Azure Audit Logs - Show the agent how to correlate `CorrelationId` between activation requests and justifications - Demonstrate how to build time windows from activation start to deactivation/expiration - Guide it through matching Azure Activity operations against justification keywords After several rounds of refinement, the agent eventually got excellent results. The interactive session wasn't just a chatbot – it was a learning tool that helped me shape the agent's behaviour. The Subagent Puzzle: Interactive vs. Headless What I really needed was an autonomous agent that could run on a schedule. As I got better results from the interactive sessions, Subagents is the tool in SRE Agent for this. I naturally wanted to convert the interactive session into a subagent that could run autonomously. This is where I hit my first conceptual stumbling block. The Aha Moment: Understanding SRE Agent's Purpose I was initially confused about how to structure a subagent. Should it replicate the interactive conversation flow? How do I capture all that back-and-forth in a static configuration? After discussions with the engineering, I learned a critical lesson: The interactive experience is fantastic for exploration, prototyping, and troubleshooting – but it's not what you should be aiming for in production automation. This reframed my entire approach. Instead of trying to replicate the conversational flow, I needed to distil my learnings from those sessions into the instructions for a subagent. Struggling with Subagent Format Even with this clarity, I struggled with the format of a subagent definition. The YAML structure, the `system_prompt` verbosity, the tool declarations – it felt overwhelming to translate my interactive sessions into a configuration file. The Game-Changer: Let the Agent Write Itself Then came the game-changing advice from engineering: This was brilliant in its simplicity. I had already what I wanted the agent to do in the interactive chat session. It was a simple as "generate a subagent from this conversation". I must admit, I did have to ask it to generate an email with the report, but the bulk of the effort in generating the YAML subagent file was done by the agent. What would have taken me hours of trial and error was done in minutes. Tool Configuration: The Missing Pieces With a subagent definition in hand, I deployed it and... nothing worked. This began the most educational part of my journey: understanding how tools work in Azure SRE Agent. Challenge #1: Accessing Log Analytics My subagent kept failing to query Log Analytics. I initially thought this was a role assignment issue – did the agent's managed identity have Log Analytics Reader permissions? I spent time checking RBAC, verifying workspace access, and reviewing Entra ID permissions. The real issue? I needed to add `QueryLogAnalyticsByWorkspaceId` as a tool in my subagent configuration! tools: - QueryLogAnalyticsByWorkspaceId The Azure SRE Agent UI supports selecting this tool during configuration, but I had missed it. More importantly, I needed to mention the Log Analytics workspace ID in my subagent's `system_prompt` so the agent knew which workspace to target: system_prompt: > ... Query the workspace: XXXXXX-d119-4550-86c0-YYYYYYYYYYY... Lesson learned: Tools aren't automatically available – you must explicitly declare them. The agent uses this to understand what capabilities it has and to configure the appropriate authentication and access patterns. Challenge #2: Sending Email Notifications The next hurdle was sending email reports. My PIM audit was working beautifully, but the results were only visible in logs. I needed email notifications. Initially, there didn't seem to be a built-in email tool I could choose from the portal. I attempted to write a custom Python tool that sent emails via Microsoft Graph API. This seemed logical – I'd done this in my previous Python agents. Problem: Corporate email policies blocked my application from sending emails via Graph. This was a security feature, not a bug, but it meant my custom tool approach was dead in the water. Discovering the Outlook Connector Then I noticed the Outlook connector in the SRE Agent configuration portal. This was a managed connector specifically for sending emails with pre-configured authentication. I set it up, configured it (noting the connector ID: `connector-abf2`), and waited for emails. Still nothing. The Manual YAML Edit Trawling through other sample subagent configurations, I discovered a tool called SendOutlookEmail. This tool wasn't available in the portal's dropdown menu, but it existed in the platform. I needed to **manually add this to my subagent YAML file**: tools: - QueryLogAnalyticsByWorkspaceId - SendOutlookEmail After this change and redeploying the subagent, emails started flowing perfectly. Lesson learned: The portal UI is evolving (remember, this is preview), and not all tools are exposed visually yet. Don't be afraid to hand-edit the YAML when you know a capability exists. The documentation and sample repositories are your friends. Making It Fully Autonomous: Scheduled Triggers With a working subagent that could query logs, analyse alignment, and send emails, I had one final step: scheduling it. I created a scheduled task trigger in Azure SRE Agent configured to run every 24 hours (UTC). This trigger invokes my PIM elevation subagent, which executes its entire workflow autonomously and emails stakeholders with any findings. The subagent configuration includes this execution schedule guidance: system_prompt: > Execution schedule: Run every 24h (UTC). Now, every morning, our security team receives a PIM elevation alignment report without any manual intervention. The Result: A Production PIM Elevation Agent My final solution is an **autonomous agent** that: Runs on a 24-hour schedule Queries Azure Audit Logs for PIM activations Extracts user justifications from the log Builds precise activation time windows Queries Azure Activity logs during that time window Classifies alignment: Aligned, Partial, or NotAligned Generates JSON and plaintext reports Emails stakeholders with flagged non-aligned activity No Python scripts. No custom authentication handling. No infrastructure to maintain. You can see the full subagent configuration in my GitHub repository: PIM Elevation Agent Reflections: SRE Agent's Power and Rough Edges Azure SRE Agent is powerful. The ability to define complex audit workflows in declarative YAML, leverage natural language prompts for behaviour specification, and integrate with Azure services through managed tools is genuinely impressive. It also integrates with incident response services - both being able to generate incidents and to trigger flows from incidents. All as a first-class Azure Platform as a Service (PaaS). However, it's important to remember that this is a preview service (as of February 2026). There are rough edges: - Tool discoverability: Not all tools are visible in the portal UI - Documentation gaps: Some capabilities require digging through samples - Learning curve: Understanding the interactive-vs-headless paradigm takes time - Debugging: Error messages aren't always clear about what's misconfigured These are typical preview-stage challenges, and I expect they'll improve as the service matures. The core platform is solid, and the engineering team is responsive to feedback. Key Takeaways If you're considering Azure SRE Agent, here are my lessons learned: Use interactive sessions for discovery – They're excellent for prototyping and learning Think headless/autonomous for production – Autonomous agents should be declarative, not conversational Let the agent write itself – Ask the interactive session to generate subagent configs Explicitly declare tools – They're not automatic; you must add them to your config Include context in prompts – Workspace IDs, connector IDs, schedules – be specific Don't fear manual YAML edits – The portal is evolving, hand-editing is ok Check samples and docs*– Other configurations show patterns and tools not yet in UI, so check the YAML of these Embrace "buy over build" – Managed services reduce long-term maintenance burden Resources: - SRE Agent Documentation - my PIM Elevation subagent sample - Kusto (KQL) Query Reference *This blog post represents my personal experience and opinions. Azure SRE Agent capabilities and UI may have changed since the time of writing.*
