Beyond text: Returning images and interactive apps from MCP servers
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is becoming a richer foundation for agent experiences. Though most servers return plain text from their tool calls, MCP servers can also return binary results and provide interactive apps in clients that support those features, like VS Code. In this post, I'll use both capabilities to build an MCP server that searches a collection of nature photos with natural language, lets the model inspect the matching images, and presents selected results in an interactive gallery. The same approach can be adapted to product catalogs, digital asset managers, photo archives, and other multimedia libraries. Searching the image library Let's start with the search experience from a user's perspective, then dive into the code behind it. After connecting VS Code to the deployed MCP server, I can ask a question in GitHub Copilot about the images: Find landscape photos that show dramatic terrain and water. Show me the strongest options for a nature gallery. The GitHub Copilot agent realizes that it can use the image search MCP tool to answer that question. Here's what it looks like in the chat interface: The tool results include rendered thumbnails. I can click a thumbnail to inspect it directly in VS Code, much like a file in the workspace, while the Copilot agent can review both the image binary data and their textual descriptions. Behind the scenes, the agent called the image_search tool with these arguments: { "query": "dramatic natural landscapes with mountains and water", "max_results": 5 } The tool call returned a mix of binary files and structured data: a thumbnail for each matching image, plus JSON containing its filename, display name, and generated description. The thumbnails let a multimodal model inspect the actual pixels, while the structured content gives the agent compact metadata it can reference in later tool calls. { "results": [ { "filename": "Picture1.jpg", "display_name": "Picture1.jpg", "description": "A clear mountain lake surrounded by pine forest and steep rocky peaks." }, ...] } Returning images from MCP tools Now let's look at the code powering that tool call. I built the server with FastMCP, a popular Python framework for writing MCP servers. I declare each tool by decorating a function with mcp.tool() and annotating its arguments with types and helpful descriptions. FastMCP converts the function signature into a JSON Schema that helps GitHub Copilot decide when and how to call image_search : @mcp.tool(annotations={"readOnlyHint": True}) async def image_search( query: Annotated[ str, "Text description of images to find (e.g., 'sunlit mountain lake')" ], max_results: Annotated[int, "Maximum number of images to return (1-20)"] = 5) -> ToolResult: """ Search for images matching a natural language query. Returns the image data and descriptions. """ Inside the function, I use Azure AI Search to perform hybrid retrieval, combining the text query with its vector embedding. The target index contains multimodal image embeddings and LLM-generated descriptions. Then I retrieve the image from Azure Blob Storage and resize it to a thumbnail. The tool returns both the binary image data for the thumbnails and structured metadata with image details. results = await search_client.search(search_text=query, top=max_results, vector_queries=[VectorizableTextQuery(k_nearest_neighbors=max_results, fields="embedding", text=query)], select=["metadata_storage_path", "verbalized_image"]) blob_service_client = get_blob_service_client() files: list[File] = [] image_results: list[dict[str, str]] = [] async for result in results: url = result["metadata_storage_path"] description = result.get("verbalized_image") container_name, blob_name = get_blob_reference_from_url(url) blob_client = blob_service_client.get_blob_client(container=container_name, blob=blob_name) stream = await blob_client.download_blob() image_bytes = await stream.readall() image_format = get_image_format(url) display_name = os.path.basename(blob_name) file_basename = Path(display_name).stem thumbnail_bytes = resize_image_bytes(image_bytes, image_format) files.append(File(data=thumbnail_bytes, format=image_format, name=file_basename)) image_results.append({"filename": blob_name, "display_name": display_name, "description": description}) return ToolResult( content=files, structured_content={ "query": query, "results": image_results, }, ) Displaying selected images Finding the right images is only the first half of the experience. Once the agent has review the thumbnails and their generated descriptions, it needs a better way to present its favorite selected images to the user. That is where MCP apps come in. An MCP app renders an interactive webpage inside a sandboxed iframe in the MCP client. For this server, the app is a small, JavaScript-powered carousel for browsing the selected images. GitHub Copilot calls the display_image_files tool when it wants to render the carousel app: Returning apps from MCP tools Let's check out the code that powers that MCP carousel app. An app is associated with a tool, so I once again decorate a Python function with mcp.tool() . This time, I pass an AppConfig that points to the image viewer's HTML resource. @mcp.tool( app=AppConfig(resource_uri=IMAGE_VIEW_URI), annotations={"readOnlyHint": True}, ) async def display_image_files( filenames: Annotated[list[str], "List of image filenames to retrieve and display in a carousel."], descriptions: Annotated[list[str], "Image descriptions, in the same order as filenames."] ) -> ToolResult: """Fetch images by filename and render in carousel with filenames, descriptions, and file details.""" Inside the function, I fetch the selected images from Azure Blob Storage by filename, then return both the binary image data and structured content describing each image—its filename, generated description, MIME type, dimensions, format, and size. blob_service_client = get_blob_service_client() image_blocks: list[types.ImageContent] = [] image_results: list[dict[str, str | int]] = [] for image_index, filename in enumerate(filenames): blob_client = blob_service_client.get_blob_client(container=IMAGE_CONTAINER_NAME, blob=filename) stream = await blob_client.download_blob() image_bytes = await stream.readall() mime_type = get_image_mime_type(filename) with Image.open(io.BytesIO(image_bytes)) as image: width, height = image.size image_format = image.format image_blocks.append(types.ImageContent( type="image", data=base64.b64encode(image_bytes).decode("utf-8"), mimeType=mime_type)) image_results.append( { "filename": filename, "description": descriptions[image_index], "mimeType": mime_type, "width": width, "height": height, "format": image_format, "sizeBytes": len(image_bytes), } ) return ToolResult( content=image_blocks, structured_content={ "images": image_results, }, ) Next, I define the resource that serves the image viewer HTML page. I decorate a Python function with @mcp.resource , assign it a ui:// URL that is unique to the MCP server, and use its Content Security Policy (CSP) to declare which external domains the app may load resources from: @mcp.resource(IMAGE_VIEW_URI, app=AppConfig(csp=ResourceCSP(resource_domains=["https://unpkg.com"]))) def image_view() -> str: """Render images returned by display_image_files as an MCP App.""" return load_image_viewer_html() The final piece is the HTML that renders inside the app's iframe. This small page imports ext-apps, a JavaScript package that manages bidirectional communication with the MCP client. The JavaScript creates an App instance, defines the ontoolresult callback, and connects the app. That callback receives images from the tool result and renders them in the carousel. MCP apps can also send messages back to the host, although this read-only viewer does not need to. <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <body> <div id="carousel"> <button id="prev" type="button" aria-label="Previous">‹</button> <div id="frame"></div> <button id="next" type="button" aria-label="Next">›</button> <span id="counter" aria-live="polite"></span> </div> <script type="module"> import { App } from "https://unpkg.com/@modelcontextprotocol/ext-apps@0.4.0/app-with-deps"; const app = new App({ name: "Image Viewer", version: "1.0.0", }); let images = []; let index = 0; const frame = document.getElementById("frame"); const prevBtn = document.getElementById("prev"); const nextBtn = document.getElementById("next"); const counter = document.getElementById("counter"); function show(i) { index = i; const img = images[index]; frame.innerHTML = ""; const el = document.createElement("img"); el.src = `data:${img.mimeType || "image/jpeg"};base64,${img.data}`; el.alt = "Blob image"; frame.appendChild(el); prevBtn.disabled = index === 0; nextBtn.disabled = index === images.length - 1; counter.textContent = images.length > 1 ? `${index + 1} / ${images.length}` : ""; } prevBtn.addEventListener("click", () => { if (index > 0) { show(index - 1); } }); nextBtn.addEventListener("click", () => { if (index < images.length - 1) { show(index + 1); } }); app.ontoolresult = ({ content }) => { images = (content || []).filter((block) => block.type === "image"); if (images.length > 0) { show(0); } }; await app.connect(); </script> </body> </html> Try it yourself! The full MCP server code is available in Azure-Samples/image-search-aisearch, along with a minimal image search website and an Azure AI Search indexing pipeline. The indexer uses an Azure OpenAI model to describe each image and Azure AI Vision to create multimodal embeddings. The repository includes a sample nature dataset, but you can replace it with any image collection. Here are more ways you could extend it it: Support more media types: add transcript search and a video or audio player app, while keeping the same search-then-display tool pattern. Enrich the metadata: index dates, locations, creators, accessibility text, or domain-specific tags alongside generated descriptions and embeddings. Optimize token consumption: images require many tokens, so returning too many thumbnails can quickly consume the model's context window. Experiment with smaller previews, higher compression, metadata-only search results, or a two-stage retrieval flow. Add authentication: many media libraries contain private or licensed assets. You can add key-based authentication or OAuth with the FastMCP auth providers, as I described in the MCP auth livestream. Once search results can carry both structured metadata and real media, an agent can do more than locate files: it can compare, curate, and present them in the same conversation. I hope you'll try the sample with a multimedia collection of your own!Building 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.Agents League: The Esports-Inspired Hackathon Where AI Agents Battle for Glory
Ready to put your AI skills to the ultimate test? Agents League is here, a dynamic, esports-inspired developer challenge that brings the thrill of live competition to the world of agentic AI. Whether you're a seasoned AI developer or just getting started, this is your chance to build, compete, and win. What is Agents League? Agents League is a week-long hackathon running as part of AI Skills Fest (June 4–14, 2026). Unlike traditional hackathons, Agents League combines live AI coding battles, asynchronous project submissions, and a thriving Discord community all competing for a total prize pool of $55,000 USD. This isn't just about building it's about showcasing what's possible with agentic AI in a format that's fast, competitive, and globally accessible. Three Challenge Tracks Pick One or Compete in All 1. Creative Apps Build innovative applications using GitHub Copilot for AI-assisted development. Show off your creativity and demonstrate how AI can accelerate app creation from concept to code. 2. Reasoning Agents Create intelligent agents using Microsoft Foundry that solve complex problems through multi-step reasoning. This track is all about building agents that can think, plan, and execute. 3. Enterprise Agents Build business-ready knowledge agents integrated with Microsoft 365 Copilot, authored in Copilot Studio. Perfect for developers focused on real-world enterprise solutions. Live Microsoft Reactor Events—Don't Miss the Battles! The heart of Agents League beats through live Microsoft Reactor events. Watch experts go head-to-head in live coding battles, learn cutting-edge techniques, and get inspired for your own submissions: Event What You'll Learn Creative Apps Battle See GitHub Copilot in action as experts build innovative apps live Reasoning Agents Battle Watch multi-step reasoning agents come to life with Microsoft Foundry Enterprise Agents Battle Learn to build M365-integrated agents with Copilot Studio 👉 View the full event series Key Dates Registration Deadline: June 12, 2026, 12:00 PM PT Hacking Period: June 4–14, 2026 Submission Deadline: June 14, 2026, 11:59 PM PT What You Get Live coding battles with expert demonstrations Curated technical experiences and on-demand content Learning resources on Microsoft Learn and AI Skills Navigator Community support through Discord GitHub-based submissions for transparent, collaborative judging Why Participate? Agents League isn't just another hackathon. It's designed as a streamlined, competitive format that: ✅ Fits into your schedule with focused, time-boxed challenges ✅ Provides real-world product innovation experience ✅ Offers global accessibility—participate from anywhere ✅ Demonstrates the latest capabilities of agentic AI, including new IQ tools ✅ Connects you with a passionate developer community Ready to Enter the Arena? Register Now for Agents League Before you register: Review the Hackathon Rules and Regulations for prize categories and judging criteria Join the Microsoft Reactor event series for live battles and learning Check out the Microsoft Event Code of Conduct Join the Conversation Have questions? Want to connect with fellow competitors? Join the Agents League community on Discord and start strategizing with developers from around the world. Whether you're building creative apps, reasoning agents, or enterprise solutions—the arena awaits. May the best agent win! 🏆 Agents League hackathon is open to the public and offered at no cost. Government employees should check with their employers to ensure participation is permitted in accordance with applicable policies. Related Links: Agents League Hackathon Registration Microsoft Reactor Series AI Skills FestToken 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.*Join our free livestream series on using Microsoft IQ with Python
Join us for a new 3-part livestream series where we take a deep technical look at Microsoft IQ, the knowledge layer for the next generation of AI experiences. You'll learn how Foundry IQ, Work IQ, and Fabric IQ can be used to ground AI systems in organizational knowledge, workplace context, and structured business data. Our series will cover: Foundry IQ for multi-source agentic retrieval on search indexes, SharePoint, websites, and more Work IQ for user-specific retrieval of M365 data, like Teams chats, emails, and calendar events Fabric IQ for retrieval of data stored in OneLake, via Fabric ontologies and data agents Building agents with Microsoft Agent Framework to connect to Foundry IQ, Fabric IQ, and Work IQ Throughout the series, we’ll use Python for all examples and share full code so you can run everything yourself in your own Foundry projects. 👉 Register for the full series. In addition to the live streams, you can also join the Microsoft Foundry Discord to ask follow-up questions after each stream. If you are new to generative AI with Python, start with our 9-part Python + AI series, which covers topics such as LLMs, embeddings, RAG, tool calling, MCP, and agents. If you are new to Microsoft Agent Framework, watch our 6-part Python + Agent series which dives deep into agents and workflows. To learn more about each live stream or register for individual sessions, scroll down: Day 1: Foundry IQ 28 July, 2026 | 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time Register for the stream on Reactor In the first session of our Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python series, we’ll kick things off with an introduction to the Microsoft IQ family: Foundry IQ, Work IQ, Fabric IQ, and Web IQ. We’ll then take a deeper look at Foundry IQ (Azure AI Search), exploring how it helps agents and applications work with curated knowledge and organizational context. We'll build a knowledge base and connect it to multiple knowledge sources, including the new IQs, MCP servers, and search indexes built from ingested data. Then we'll perform multi-source agentic retrieval on the knowledge base, which executes queries in parallel and merges the results with state-of-the-art ranking models. Finally, we will build an agent in Python using Microsoft Agent Framework and ground the agent's responses in results from the Foundry IQ knowledge base. All code demos will use Python and will be available in an open-source repository for you to deploy yourself. After the stream, join office hours in the Microsoft Foundry Discord to ask follow-up questions. Day 2: Work IQ 29 July, 2026 | 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time Register for the stream on Reactor In the second session of our Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python series, we’ll focus on Work IQ and how it brings workplace context into AI-powered experiences. We’ll explore how developers can use Work IQ through APIs, A2A patterns, MCP integration, and tool-based workflows. We’ll look at two practical tool examples, then show how Work IQ can be used from Copilot and from a Microsoft Agent Framework agent. All code demos will use Python and will be available in an open-source repository for you to deploy yourself. After the stream, join office hours in the Microsoft Foundry Discord to ask follow-up questions. Day 3: Fabric IQ 30 July, 2026 | 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time Register for the stream on Reactor In the final session of our Microsoft IQ Deep Dive with Python series, we’ll explore Fabric IQ and how it connects AI experiences to structured business data. We’ll introduce the key concepts behind Fabric IQ, including ontologies and data agents, and show how they help describe, organize, and reason over operational data stored in OneLake. We’ll use the Microsoft Fabric API SDK in Python to connect to Fabric IQ, so that we can programmatically configure ontologies and answer questions about our data. All code demos will use Python and will be available in an open-source repository for you to deploy yourself. After the stream, join office hours in the Microsoft Foundry Discord to ask follow-up questions.
MCP Server Authorization with Azure API Management: From Simple to Advanced
Why put API Management in front of your MCP servers The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has quickly become the standard way for AI agents, such as GitHub Copilot in VS Code, to reach external tools and data. As soon as an MCP server does anything meaningful, the same questions that govern any API resurface: who is allowed to call it, what are they allowed to do, and how do you enforce that consistently across many servers without rewriting each one. Azure API Management (APIM) answers those questions for MCP. It sits between the MCP client and the tool backend and applies the controls you already trust for REST APIs: identity validation, OAuth, rate limiting, IP filtering, and observability. Crucially, APIM speaks the MCP authorization specification, which is built on OAuth 2.1 and Protected Resource Metadata (PRM, RFC 9728). That means APIM can do more than block bad requests. It can actively drive an interactive sign-in from the IDE, so the user logs in with their own identity and the agent acts on their behalf. This article walks through a progression of authorization scenarios, each one building on the last: The simple case: validate a token and block everything else. Triggering an interactive sign-in from VS Code for an MCP server that APIM hosts from your own APIs. Going beyond "is this a tenant user" to "does this user have the right attribute" with Entra app roles. Fronting an existing external MCP server and letting it drive its own OAuth flow (GitHub as the example). Governing which tools of an existing MCP server an agent is actually allowed to invoke. APIM MCP capabilities and the basic authorization options API Management exposes MCP servers in two distinct ways, and the authorization story differs slightly for each. Expose a REST API as an MCP server. APIM takes an API it already manages and projects selected operations as MCP tools. You own the operations, so you choose exactly which ones become tools at configuration time. This is the right mode when the capability you want to expose is an API you control. Expose an existing MCP server (passthrough). APIM fronts a remote MCP-compatible server (LangChain, an Azure Function, GitHub's remote MCP server, your own container) and relays the MCP protocol to it. APIM governs access, but the upstream server still owns its tool catalog. On top of either mode, you have a spectrum of authorization options: Subscription keys for simple, machine-to-machine access where a shared secret in a header is acceptable. Token validation with Microsoft Entra ID, where APIM acts as the protected resource and verifies a bearer token on every call. Interactive OAuth 2.1 sign-in, where APIM advertises Protected Resource Metadata so an MCP client can discover the authorization server, log the user in, and retry with a user token. Authorization passthrough, where an external MCP server presents its own authorization challenge and APIM relays it faithfully so the client authenticates directly against the upstream's identity provider. The rest of the article works through these options in increasing order of capability. The example setup The walkthroughs in the first three scenarios all use the same backend so you can reproduce them without standing up anything of your own: the publicly available Star Wars API at Star Wars API. It is a simple, read-friendly REST API (characters, films, planets, starships, and so on) imported into API Management as a normal API and then projected as an MCP server. The reason this single API is enough to illustrate the whole progression is that, in API Management, one underlying API can back several independent MCP servers, each exposing a different slice of its operations. For example, you can create: A read-only MCP server that exposes only the GET operations, for agents that should be able to query data but never change it. A write-capable MCP server that exposes the POST, PUT, or DELETE operations, for trusted automation that is allowed to mutate state. Same backend API, two MCP servers, two different tool surfaces. Each of these servers is an independent resource in APIM, so each one can carry its own authorization. Both can require an authenticated user (Scenarios 1 and 2), and you can go further by protecting only the sensitive one: gate the write-capable server behind an Entra app role so that, even among authenticated users, only those who carry a specific claim can reach the mutating tools. That app-role mechanism is the subject of Scenario 3, and it composes naturally with the multi-server split described here. Registering the MCP API in Microsoft Entra ID Before any of the policies below can validate a token, you need an application registration in Microsoft Entra ID that represents the MCP API. This registration is what defines the audience and scope that tokens are issued for, and it is the source of the mcp-audience, mcp-scope, and (indirectly) mcp-client-id values that the policies reference. Create it once and reuse it across all the MCP servers in this article. In the Azure portal, open Microsoft Entra ID, then App registrations, then New registration. Name it (for example, star-wars-mcp-api), choose single-tenant, and register. Record the Application (client) ID and the Directory (tenant) ID. Open Expose an API and add an Application ID URI. Accept the default api://<app-id>. This URI is your token audience. Still under Expose an API, add a delegated scope named MCP.Access, set its consent display name and description, set the state to Enabled, and save. Authorize the client that will request the scope. Under Expose an API, select Add a client application and enter the client ID of the MCP client. For VS Code, this is the built-in Microsoft authentication client aebc6443-996d-45c2-90f0-388ff96faa56. Check the MCP.Access scope and save. These steps produce the four constants the validation policy needs: Named value Comes from Example entra-tenant-id The Directory (tenant) ID from step 1 11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111 mcp-audience The Application ID URI from step 2 api://22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222 mcp-scope The scope name from step 3 MCP.Access mcp-client-id The client ID of the calling app from step 4 aebc6443-996d-45c2-90f0-388ff96faa56 [!NOTE] mcp-client-id is the identity of the application calling the MCP server, not the MCP API itself. For VS Code it is the built-in Microsoft authentication client, and its value lands in the token's appid claim, which is why the validation policy lists it under client-application-ids. If your tenant blocks the first-party VS Code client, register your own public client application and use its client ID instead. [!TIP] For the privileged-access feature in Scenario 3, you will also declare an app role on this same registration. You do not need it yet, but it is convenient to know that all identity configuration for these servers lives on this one app registration. With that backend and structure in mind, the scenarios below build up the authorization model one capability at a time. Scenario 1: The simple case, validate the token and block unauthorized access The most basic protection is to require a valid Entra ID token on every MCP request and reject anything that fails validation. No interactive flow, no roles, just a gate. APIM does this with the validate-azure-ad-token policy. The policy checks the issuing tenant, the audience (your MCP API), the calling client application, and the required scope. Anything that does not satisfy all four is rejected with a 401. <policies> <inbound> <base /> <validate-azure-ad-token tenant-id="{{entra-tenant-id}}" header-name="Authorization" failed-validation-httpcode="401" failed-validation-error-message="Unauthorized. Access token is missing or invalid."> <client-application-ids> <application-id>{{mcp-client-id}}</application-id> </client-application-ids> <audiences> <audience>{{mcp-audience}}</audience> </audiences> <required-claims> <claim name="scp" match="any"> <value>{{mcp-scope}}</value> </claim> </required-claims> </validate-azure-ad-token> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> </on-error> </policies> The values in double braces are APIM named values: centralized constants, defined once and shared by every MCP server. They map directly to the four values produced by the Entra app registration in the example setup (entra-tenant-id, mcp-audience, mcp-scope, and mcp-client-id). Storing them as named values keeps the policy free of hardcoded identifiers and lets every server reuse the same configuration. This gets you a server that nobody can call without a properly minted token. What it does not do is help a fresh client obtain that token in the first place. That is the next scenario. Scenario 2: Driving an interactive sign-in from VS Code for an APIM-hosted MCP server When you expose one of your own APIs as an MCP server, you usually want a developer to open VS Code, connect to the server, and be prompted to sign in with their Microsoft account. No pre-shared key, no manual token handling. APIM achieves this by behaving as a well-mannered OAuth 2.1 protected resource. Using the Star Wars MCP server from the example setup, each selected operation becomes a tool the agent can call, so an agent can answer "which films featured the character named Leia" by calling the underlying API through APIM. How the sign-in flow works The protocol choreography is what turns a plain 401 into an interactive login: Two ingredients make this work: a 401 challenge that points to a metadata document, and the metadata document itself. The challenge: a 401 that points the client to its metadata Instead of a bare 401, APIM returns a WWW-Authenticate header carrying the URL of the server's Protected Resource Metadata. This is what tells the client "you need a token, and here is where to learn how to get one." Keeping this logic in a shared policy fragment means every MCP server reuses it. Notice the mcpResourceMetadataUrl reference in the fragment below. It is not hardcoded; it is a context variable that each MCP server sets in its own server-level policy before including this fragment (you will see that wiring in the per-server policy later in this scenario). The fragment simply reads whatever value the calling server provided. This indirection is what keeps the fragment pluggable: the same shared challenge-and-validate logic serves every MCP server, while each server supplies its own PRM URL. In most deployments the PRM endpoint is a single, dynamic one (built in the next section) that derives the resource from the request path, so the variable just carries that server's path. But because the URL is configurable per server rather than baked into the fragment, you retain flexibility for the cases that need it. <fragment> <!-- No token: challenge with the per-server PRM URL set by the caller --> <choose> <when condition="@(!context.Request.Headers.ContainsKey("Authorization"))"> <return-response> <set-status code="401" reason="Unauthorized" /> <set-header name="WWW-Authenticate" exists-action="override"> <value>@("Bearer resource_metadata=\"" + (string)context.Variables.GetValueOrDefault("mcpResourceMetadataUrl", "") + "\"")</value> </set-header> </return-response> </when> </choose> <!-- Token present: validate against shared named values --> <validate-azure-ad-token tenant-id="{{entra-tenant-id}}" header-name="Authorization" failed-validation-httpcode="401" failed-validation-error-message="Unauthorized. Access token is missing or invalid."> <client-application-ids> <application-id>{{mcp-client-id}}</application-id> </client-application-ids> <audiences> <audience>{{mcp-audience}}</audience> </audiences> <required-claims> <claim name="scp" match="any"> <value>{{mcp-scope}}</value> </claim> </required-claims> </validate-azure-ad-token> </fragment> Creating the /.well-known PRM endpoint in APIM with a policy This is the part that often surprises people: APIM itself serves the metadata document. There is no separate identity service to stand up. You publish one small anonymous API at the service root that answers GET /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/*, derives the resource value from the requested path, and returns a JSON document pointing at Microsoft Entra ID as the authorization server. Create a blank HTTP API named well-known with an empty API URL suffix so it resolves at the service root, add a GET operation with the template /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/*, clear the subscription requirement so it is reachable anonymously, and apply this policy: <policies> <inbound> <base /> <!-- Build the resource URL from the requested PRM sub-path --> <set-variable name="resourceUrl" value="@{ var prefix = "/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource"; var path = context.Request.OriginalUrl.Path; var resourcePath = path.Length > prefix.Length ? path.Substring(prefix.Length) : ""; return "https://" + context.Request.OriginalUrl.Host + resourcePath; }" /> <return-response> <set-status code="200" reason="OK" /> <set-header name="Content-Type" exists-action="override"> <value>application/json</value> </set-header> <set-body>@{ return new JObject( new JProperty("resource", (string)context.Variables["resourceUrl"]), new JProperty("authorization_servers", new JArray( "https://login.microsoftonline.com/{{entra-tenant-id}}/v2.0")), new JProperty("scopes_supported", new JArray("{{mcp-prm-scope}}")), new JProperty("bearer_methods_supported", new JArray("header")) ).ToString(); }</set-body> </return-response> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> </on-error> </policies> The {{mcp-prm-scope}} named value populates the scopes_supported array of the metadata document. It tells the client which delegated scope to request when it goes to the authorization server, so it must be the fully qualified scope value: the token audience (the Application ID URI from the app registration) followed by the scope name. With the example values that is api://22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222/MCP.Access. In other words, it is the combination of the mcp-audience and mcp-scope values defined in the example setup. Named value Value to set Example mcp-prm-scope <mcp-audience>/<mcp-scope> api://22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222/MCP.Access [!NOTE] Keep mcp-prm-scope in sync with the scope the validation fragment requires. The PRM document advertises this scope so the client requests it, and validate-azure-ad-token then checks for it in the scp claim. A mismatch means the client obtains a token without the scope APIM expects, and validation fails. Because the policy builds the resource value from the request path, this single endpoint serves metadata for every MCP server you ever add. The Star Wars server, a future inventory server, and anything else all share it. Wiring it onto the MCP server Each MCP server only needs to declare its own metadata URL and include the shared fragment: <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-variable name="mcpResourceMetadataUrl" value="https://apim-contoso-mcp.azure-api.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/star-wars-mcp/mcp" /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-entra-auth" /> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-auth-challenge-onerror" /> </on-error> </policies> On the VS Code side, the configuration is deliberately plain. With no subscription-key header present, the client falls straight into the OAuth flow: { "servers": { "star-wars-mcp": { "url": "https://apim-contoso-mcp.azure-api.net/star-wars-mcp/mcp", "type": "http" } } } Restart the server in VS Code, and it detects the 401, reads the metadata, opens a browser sign-in, requests consent on first use, and then loads the tools using the user's token. [!CAUTION] Do not read the response body with context.Response.Body inside MCP server policies. It forces response buffering and breaks the MCP streaming transport. If global diagnostic logging is enabled, set the Frontend Response payload bytes to log to 0 at the All APIs scope. Scenario 3: Beyond tenant membership, authorize on a user attribute with app roles Validating a token confirms the caller is a signed-in user in your tenant with the right scope. That is often not enough. Some MCP servers expose sensitive tools that only a subset of users should reach. You want to express "this user is not only part of the tenant, but has a specific attribute that permits this server." Microsoft Entra app roles are the optimal mechanism for this. You declare a role on the MCP API app registration, assign it to specific users or to a security group, and Entra ID emits a roles claim in the access token whenever your API is the audience. APIM then authorizes on that claim. App roles beat the groups claim here because they avoid the group overage problem, they are scoped to the application, and they travel with the app. Declaring and assigning the role On the MCP API app registration, under App roles, create a role: Setting Value Display name Privileged Access Allowed member types Users/Groups Value Privileged.Access Description Access to privileged MCP servers Then, on the matching enterprise application, under Users and groups, assign the users (or, better, a security group) to the Privileged Access role. The Value field is the exact string that lands in the token roles claim, so it cannot contain spaces. [!TIP] Keep User assignment required set to No on the enterprise application. Unassigned users still obtain a valid token with the MCP.Access scope and keep access to the non-privileged servers. They simply do not carry the roles claim, so the privileged servers reject them. Enforcing the claim in the per-server policy The shared mcp-entra-auth fragment is used by every server, so the role requirement must not live there. Place the check in the privileged server's own policy, right after the fragment include. The token is already validated at that point, so this step is pure authorization. Because the caller is authenticated but not authorized, return 403, not 401, and do not emit a challenge: re-authenticating will not grant a role the user does not have. <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-variable name="mcpResourceMetadataUrl" value="https://apim-contoso-mcp.azure-api.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/star-wars-mcp/mcp" /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-entra-auth" /> <!-- Privileged guardrail: require the Privileged.Access app role --> <choose> <when condition="@(!context.Request.Headers.GetValueOrDefault("Authorization","").Replace("Bearer ","").AsJwt().Claims.GetValueOrDefault("roles", new string[0]).Contains("Privileged.Access"))"> <return-response> <set-status code="403" reason="Forbidden" /> <set-header name="Content-Type" exists-action="override"> <value>application/json</value> </set-header> <set-body>{"error":"forbidden","message":"You lack the Privileged.Access role required for this MCP server."}</set-body> </return-response> </when> </choose> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-auth-challenge-onerror" /> </on-error> </policies> One operational detail worth calling out: app-role assignments only appear in newly issued tokens. A user who is granted the role after they signed in must obtain a fresh token. In VS Code, run MCP: Reset Cached Tokens (or sign out of the Microsoft account from the Accounts menu), then restart the server and sign in again. You can confirm the result by pasting the access token into https://jwt.ms and checking for "roles": ["Privileged.Access"]. Scenario 4: Fronting an existing external MCP server that drives its own sign-in So far APIM has been the authorization resource. But many valuable MCP servers already exist and run their own identity. GitHub publishes a remote MCP server with dozens of tools, and it authenticates users against GitHub's own OAuth authorization server. You do not want to re-implement that. You want APIM to govern access (rate limits, IP rules, logging, a single managed endpoint) while letting the upstream own the login. This is the "expose an existing MCP server" passthrough mode. When you register GitHub's remote MCP server behind APIM, the gateway relays the upstream's own authorization challenge. The client never authenticates against Entra here. It authenticates directly against GitHub. The flow, confirmed by probing the gateway: A call to the APIM endpoint with no token returns GitHub's own 401 with a WWW-Authenticate header, relayed through APIM. The Protected Resource Metadata that GitHub serves advertises authorization_servers: ["https://github.com/login/oauth"], so the client knows to log in at GitHub. The PRM resource reflects the APIM host, because GitHub builds it from the forwarded Host header. The client trusts the APIM endpoint while still logging in at GitHub. VS Code completes the GitHub sign-in and the full tool catalog loads. In the proof of concept this surfaced all 47 GitHub tools through the single APIM endpoint. The client configuration is again just a URL pointing at APIM: { "servers": { "github-via-apim": { "url": "https://apim-contoso-mcp.azure-api.net/github-mcp/mcp", "type": "http" } } } The key insight is that APIM transparently relays the backend's authentication challenge. GitHub remains the authorization server, GitHub tolerates being fronted by APIM, and you get a governed, centrally managed entry point without owning the identity flow. [!NOTE] Passthrough only relays what the upstream advertises. If the backend's PRM resource value and the actual MCP transport endpoint differ by a path segment, some clients fall back to deriving the metadata location from the server URL and can miss it. When you onboard a custom self-authenticating server, verify that the resource it advertises matches the exact URL the client connects to. Scenario 5: Restricting which tools of an existing MCP server an agent may call Passthrough raises a governance question that token validation alone cannot answer. A developer may legitimately have permission to merge a pull request through GitHub, but you may not want their AI agent to perform that action autonomously. You want to allow the read and discovery tools while blocking the destructive write tools, at the gateway, regardless of what the client tries. What is and is not possible for an external server It is important to be precise here, because the capability differs from the REST-as-MCP mode: For a REST-API-exposed-as-MCP server, you pick which operations become tools at creation time. That is native tool selection and the cleanest possible filter. For an existing/external MCP server, APIM does not enumerate the upstream's tools. The portal Tools blade explicitly states that tools are not visible for external MCP servers, and there is no allow-list property for them. APIM also cannot safely rewrite the tools/list response, because reading the response body breaks the streaming transport and the list may arrive as text/event-stream. What APIM can do reliably, and server-agnostically, is block the invocation. Every tool call arrives as a JSON-RPC tools/call request in the request body, which APIM can inspect safely. The deny-listed tools remain visible in the catalog, but any attempt to invoke one is intercepted at the gateway and returned a JSON-RPC error before it ever reaches the upstream. The reusable deny-list fragment The block is driven by a per-server named value (a comma-separated list of tool names), so the same fragment governs every external server. Only the named value changes. <!-- Fragment: mcp-tool-filter (include after the auth fragment) --> <fragment> <choose> <when condition="@(context.Request.Body != null)"> <set-variable name="mcpMethod" value="@{ try { var body = context.Request.Body.As<JObject>(preserveContent: true); return (string)body?["method"] ?? string.Empty; } catch { return string.Empty; } }" /> <choose> <when condition="@(((string)context.Variables["mcpMethod"]).Equals("tools/call", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))"> <set-variable name="mcpToolName" value="@{ var body = context.Request.Body.As<JObject>(preserveContent: true); return (string)body?["params"]?["name"] ?? string.Empty; }" /> <!-- mcpBlockedTools is a comma-separated deny-list set by the per-server policy before this include --> <set-variable name="mcpBlocked" value="@{ var tool = ((string)context.Variables["mcpToolName"]).Trim().ToLowerInvariant(); var deny = ((string)context.Variables.GetValueOrDefault("mcpBlockedTools", "")).ToLowerInvariant().Split(',').Select(t => t.Trim()); return deny.Contains(tool); }" /> <choose> <when condition="@((bool)context.Variables["mcpBlocked"])"> <return-response> <set-status code="200" reason="OK" /> <set-header name="Content-Type" exists-action="override"> <value>application/json</value> </set-header> <set-body>@{ var id = "null"; try { var body = context.Request.Body.As<JObject>(preserveContent: true); id = body?["id"]?.ToString(Newtonsoft.Json.Formatting.None) ?? "null"; } catch {} return "{\"jsonrpc\":\"2.0\",\"id\":" + id + ",\"error\":{\"code\":-32602,\"message\":\"Unknown tool: " + ((string)context.Variables["mcpToolName"]) + "\"}}"; }</set-body> </return-response> </when> </choose> </when> </choose> </when> </choose> </fragment> The deny-list itself lives in a named value, one per server: APIM named value. Comma-separated, case-insensitive. mcp-blocked-tools-github = merge_pull_request,create_repository,delete_repository,push_files,create_or_update_file,issue_write,label_write # <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-variable name="mcpResourceMetadataUrl" value="https://apim-contoso-mcp.azure-api.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/github-mcp/mcp" /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-entra-auth" /> <set-variable name="mcpBlockedTools" value="{{mcp-blocked-tools-github}}" /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-tool-filter" /> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-auth-challenge-onerror" /> </on-error> </policies> Generic per-server pattern: mcp-blocked-tools-<server> = <comma,separated,tool,names> Wiring it onto the GitHub passthrough server <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-variable name="mcpResourceMetadataUrl" value="https://apim-contoso-mcp.azure-api.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/github-mcp/mcp" /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-entra-auth" /> <set-variable name="mcpBlockedTools" value="{{mcp-blocked-tools-github}}" /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-tool-filter" /> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> <include-fragment fragment-id="mcp-auth-challenge-onerror" /> </on-error> </policies> Now when the agent tries to merge a pull request, the gateway returns a clean -32602 Unknown tool error and the upstream is never touched. Read and discovery tools continue to work. The tool still appears in the client's catalog. Adding governance for another external server is just one more named value plus the same fragment include. No new policy logic. Key takeaways API Management turns MCP servers into governed resources, applying the same identity, traffic, and observability controls you already use for APIs. Start simple with validate-azure-ad-token to gate access, then graduate to a full interactive sign-in by serving Protected Resource Metadata from a single APIM policy. You can publish multiple MCP servers from one underlying API, for example a read-only server and a read-write server, by selecting different operations. App roles let you authorize on a user attribute, not just tenant membership, and the check belongs in the per-server policy so shared logic stays clean. For existing external servers, APIM relays the upstream's own OAuth flow, so a server like GitHub keeps owning its identity while you keep central governance. When an external server's full tool surface is too broad, APIM can block specific tool invocations at the gateway with a reusable, named-value-driven policy, so a user's agent cannot perform actions the user could perform manually. References About MCP servers in Azure API Management Secure access to MCP servers in API Management Expose REST API in API Management as an MCP server Expose and govern an existing MCP server validate-azure-ad-token policy reference Policy fragments in API Management RFC 9728: OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata MCP authorization specification Star Wars API (example backend) MCP for BeginnersMastering Query Fields in Azure AI Document Intelligence with C#
Introduction Azure AI Document Intelligence simplifies document data extraction, with features like query fields enabling targeted data retrieval. However, using these features with the C# SDK can be tricky. This guide highlights a real-world issue, provides a corrected implementation, and shares best practices for efficient usage. Use case scenario During the cause of Azure AI Document Intelligence software engineering code tasks or review, many developers encountered an error while trying to extract fields like "FullName," "CompanyName," and "JobTitle" using `AnalyzeDocumentAsync`: The error might be similar to Inner Error: The parameter urlSource or base64Source is required. This is a challenge referred to as parameter errors and SDK changes. Most problematic code are looks like below in C#: BinaryData data = BinaryData.FromBytes(Content); var queryFields = new List<string> { "FullName", "CompanyName", "JobTitle" }; var operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, modelId, data, "1-2", queryFields: queryFields, features: new List<DocumentAnalysisFeature> { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields } ); One of the reasons this failed was that the developer was using `Azure.AI.DocumentIntelligence v1.0.0`, where `base64Source` and `urlSource` must be handled internally. Because the older examples using `AnalyzeDocumentContent` no longer apply and leading to errors. Practical Solution Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions. Alternative Method using manual JSON Payload. Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions The correct method involves using AnalyzeDocumentOptions, which streamlines the request construction using the below steps: Prepare the document content: BinaryData data = BinaryData.FromBytes(Content); Create AnalyzeDocumentOptions: var analyzeOptions = new AnalyzeDocumentOptions(modelId, data) { Pages = "1-2", Features = { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields }, QueryFields = { "FullName", "CompanyName", "JobTitle" } }; - `modelId`: Your trained model’s ID. - `Pages`: Specify pages to analyze (e.g., "1-2"). - `Features`: Enable `QueryFields`. - `QueryFields`: Define which fields to extract. Run the analysis: Operation<AnalyzeResult> operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, analyzeOptions ); AnalyzeResult result = operation.Value; The reason this works: The SDK manages `base64Source` automatically. This approach matches the latest SDK standards. It results in cleaner, more maintainable code. Alternative method using manual JSON payload For advanced use cases where more control over the request is needed, you can manually create the JSON payload. For an example: var queriesPayload = new { queryFields = new[] { new { key = "FullName" }, new { key = "CompanyName" }, new { key = "JobTitle" } } }; string jsonPayload = JsonSerializer.Serialize(queriesPayload); BinaryData requestData = BinaryData.FromString(jsonPayload); var operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, modelId, requestData, "1-2", features: new List<DocumentAnalysisFeature> { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields } ); When to use the above: Custom request formats Non-standard data source integration Key points to remember Breaking changes exist between preview versions and v1.0.0 by checking the SDK version. Prefer `AnalyzeDocumentOptions` for simpler, error-free integration by using built-In classes. Ensure your content is wrapped in `BinaryData` or use a direct URL for correct document input: Conclusion Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions provides a cleaner and more reliable way to work with query fields in Azure AI Document Intelligence using C#. By aligning with the latest SDK approach, developers can simplify implementation, reduce common errors, and improve code maintainability. Keeping up with SDK enhancements and recommended practices ensures more accurate and efficient document data extraction. As Azure AI capabilities continue to evolve, adopting modern integration patterns will help you build scalable and future-ready document processing solutions with greater confidence. Reference Official AnalyzeDocumentAsync Documentation. Official Azure SDK documentation. Azure Document Intelligence C# SDK support add-on query field.Agents That Test Agents: A Cloud-Native Skill-Eval Harness on Foundry Hosted Agents
Skills are an agent's must-have. So test them. A skill is the lightest way to give an agent durable, reusable behavior: a SKILL.md file you author once, store centrally in Foundry's versioned Skills API, and inject into a Hosted Agent's context — no code change, no redeploy. That's why skills have quietly become standard equipment for production agents. But the moment a skill carries real behavior, a hard question follows: how do you know it still works? When you edit a skill you can't feel whether you improved it or just changed it. It might stop triggering, skip a required section, or quietly produce a worse result on one model than another. The cure is the same discipline we use for any prompt — evaluate it: run the agent, capture what happened, and grade it against a small set of checks. This is exactly what azure_skill_eval does for one concrete skill: edu-video-script, which writes an education short-video script for a given knowledge point (the sample's smoke test asks it to script the "P vs NP problem"). And it does the whole thing cloud-native, on Foundry Hosted Agents. The scenario: one skill, two models, four hosted agents The skill under test is edu-video-script. The clever part of the harness is that it doesn't just check one run — it puts the skill on a stand and stresses it from three sides, using four Foundry Hosted Agents wired together by the Agent Framework FoundryAgent: Hosted agent Role skill-eval-business-agent-gpt System under test (SUT), running edu-video-script on gpt-5.5 skill-eval-business-agent-deepseek The same skill, running on DeepSeek-V4-Pro skill-eval-attacker-agent Multi-turn adversarial prompt generator skill-eval-judge-agent LLM-as-judge that returns a rubric score as JSON Two business agents run the same skill on different models, so every case becomes an apples-to-apples comparison: which model executes this skill better? The attacker and judge are the graders. What we measure (define "done" first) Good evals start from a checkable definition of done — outcome, process, style, efficiency. For an education-video script that means: Did it produce a valid script (outcome)? Did it actually follow the edu-video-script template (process/style)? Does it hold up when a user pushes on it across turns (robustness)? The harness answers these with three grading layers. 1. Deterministic checks first (validator.py) The cheapest, most explainable signal: does the output match the script template the skill is supposed to produce? validator.py runs fixed, deterministic template checks — no model needed. These catch the obvious regressions instantly and never cost a token. 2. The LLM judge (skill-eval-judge-agent) Template checks answer "did it do the basics?" but not "is the script any good?" — pacing, clarity, whether it teaches the concept. For that, a dedicated judge hosted agent grades the result and returns structured JSON so scores compare cleanly across runs and models: { "overall_pass": true, "score": 100, "checks": [] } Structured output is the point: stable fields (overall_pass, score, checks) diff cleanly between GPT and DeepSeek, and between today's skill version and last week's. 3. The multi-turn attacker (test_agent.py + skill-eval-attacker-agent) A skill that looks great on a clean prompt can still fall apart when a user pushes on it. The attacker agent generates adversarial prompts for a knowledge point using a chosen strategy — for example extreme length — and keeps the pressure on across multiple turns (max_turns, default 3). This is where you find out whether edu-video-script stays on-template under stress, not just on the happy path. # the attacker takes a knowledge point + a strategy, emits one user prompt azd ai agent invoke skill-eval-attacker-agent \ "Topic: P vs. NP problem Recommended attack strategy: Extreme length Please output the unique user prompt text." The eval loop, end to end runner.py is a ghcsdk-style pipeline that runs cases × models, with each side toggleable: pick all models / GPT only / DeepSeek only, run a single case (e.g. edge-03), and switch adversarial mode, single-turn vs multi-turn, and judge grading on or off. The same switches are query parameters on POST /api/run: model, only_case, use_attack, single_turn, use_judge, max_turns. The test set lives in shared/test_cases.py — 10 built-in edge cases (edge-01 … edge-10) exported to evals/evals.json. You don't need a giant benchmark; a small, sharp set catches regressions, and you grow it whenever a real failure shows up: python -m evals.export_evals # regenerate evals/evals.json from shared/test_cases.py Every SUT call goes through runtime.py, which follows the official Agent Framework hosted-agent sample: it opens a fresh hosted session per turn, invokes via Responses, and tears the session down afterward. # shared/runtime.py — the documented Foundry hosted-agent pattern project = AIProjectClient(endpoint=FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT, credential=cred, allow_preview=True) agent = FoundryAgent(project_client=project, name=agent_name, # e.g. skill-eval-business-agent-gpt allow_preview=True) session = project.beta.agents.create_session(agent_name=agent_name) # ... send the (possibly adversarial) prompt, collect the Responses output ... So a single case flows: runner → business agent (skill runs) → validator → judge, optionally with the attacker driving multiple turns first. Cloud-native by design — and why that matters for eval This is the part that makes the harness production-grade rather than a laptop script. The hard parts of an eval harness — provisioning agents, recording every run, scaling trials, governing access — are handled by Azure, not by you. Foundry Hosted Agents are the runtime. The SUT, attacker, and judge all run as managed hosted agents in your Foundry project. You bring the skill and the cases; Foundry hosts the agents, models, and sessions. The business agents deploy with host: azure.ai.agent and docker.remoteBuild: true, so azd deploy builds the containers in Azure Container Registry — local Docker doesn't even need to be running. The UI is serverless. A FastAPI app on Azure Container Apps lets you upload evals.json, watch progress live, and browse the dashboard — scale-to-zero when no one's running evals. Every run is durable. Results land in Azure Blob Storage (skill-eval-runs), one yymmdd-XXXXXX/ folder per run, with a newest-first runs.json index. Nothing lives only in a terminal scrollback. Access is identity-based. In the cloud, a user-assigned Managed Identity carries exactly two roles — Storage Blob Data Contributor + Azure AI User; locally it's AzureCliCredential. No keys in env files. It's reproducible infra. azd up runs infra/main.bicep to stand up Storage, the container, Log Analytics, the Container Apps environment, the identity, and the role assignments in one shot. The payoff: the scores you read came from the same hosted runtime you actually ship to — not a local approximation — and the run that produced them is sitting in Blob, comparable against every run before it. Run it Local (no deploy): conda activate agentdev cd Skill_eval/azure_skill_eval pip install -r requirements.txt cp .env.example .env # FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT + AZURE_STORAGE_* uvicorn webapp.app:app --reload --port 8000 Open http://localhost:8000, upload evals/evals.json, pick your models and modes, and click Run. Cloud (azd): azd auth login azd env new skill-eval-dev azd env set FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT https://<project>.services.ai.azure.com/api/projects/<project> azd env set MODEL_GPT gpt-5.5 azd env set MODEL_DEEPSEEK DeepSeek-V4-Pro azd up Provision the skill once, deploy the four hosted agents, then smoke-test them: python -m hosted_agent.provision_skills # upload edu-video-script to Foundry Skills azd deploy skill-eval-business-agent-gpt azd deploy skill-eval-business-agent-deepseek azd deploy skill-eval-attacker-agent azd deploy skill-eval-judge-agent azd ai agent invoke skill-eval-business-agent-gpt "Here is a script for an educational short video on the P vs. NP problem." Read the results Each run is self-contained on Blob: summary.json gives you the headline — pass rate and judge averages — and the per-{case}__{model}.json files let you open any single result and see exactly what the skill produced and why it passed or failed. The dashboard streams these straight from Blob via /api/runs/{run_id}/files/{filename}. Because GPT and DeepSeek ran the same cases, the comparison is right there in one folder. Takeaways A skill you can't evaluate is a skill you can't trust. edu-video-script is treated like code — versioned in Foundry, run, and graded. Stack your graders cheap-to-expensive. Deterministic template checks first (validator.py), then an LLM judge for quality, then a multi-turn attacker for robustness. Make the judge return structured JSON. overall_pass / score / checks compare cleanly across models and skill versions. Compare models on the same skill. Running GPT-5.5 and DeepSeek-V4-Pro side by side turns "which model?" from a guess into a measured answer. Let the platform carry the harness. Foundry Hosted Agents are the runtime; Azure Container Apps, Blob Storage, Managed Identity, and azd/Bicep make the whole loop reproducible and durable. Write the skill. Then build the harness that proves it. On Foundry, that second step is mostly configuration — and the result is a skill you can actually trust in production. Conclusion Skills moved agent behavior out of code and into versioned Markdown — a huge win for reuse, but only if you can prove a skill still works after every edit. azure_skill_eval answers that for edu-video-script by treating evaluation as a first-class, repeatable step rather than a gut check. The shape is simple and worth copying for any skill of your own: Pin down "done" as checkable criteria, then encode a small set of sharp cases (here, 10 edge cases). Grade in layers, cheap to expensive — deterministic template checks, then a structured LLM-judge rubric, then a multi-turn adversarial pass. Run the same cases across models (GPT-5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4-Pro) so model choice becomes a measurement, not a guess. Let the cloud carry it — Foundry Hosted Agents as the runtime, FastAPI on Azure Container Apps for the UI, Blob Storage for durable runs, Managed Identity for access, and azd/Bicep so the whole thing is reproducible. The result is a feedback loop where every skill change is confirmed, every regression is visible, and every score traces back to the same hosted runtime you ship to. That's the difference between building skills and being able to trust them — and on Foundry, the gap between the two is mostly configuration. Sample Code : https://github.com/kinfey/Multi-AI-Agents-Cloud-Native/tree/main/code/Skill_eval
