Building Production-Ready AI Agents in Microsoft Foundry: 10 Lessons Learned
A Real-World Scenario Imagine a customer support agent that answers invoice questions. During testing, everything works perfectly. But in production: The Finance API occasionally times out. The knowledge base contains outdated information. Tool calls fail during peak traffic. Token consumption rises unexpectedly. The result isn't a broken AI model. It's an unreliable system. This is where Microsoft Foundry becomes critical. Building production-ready agents requires grounding, observability, resiliency, governance, and continuous monitoring. New challenges appear: Challenge Impact Hallucinated responses Reduced trust Missing citations Verification issues Tool failures Broken workflows High token consumption Increased cost Latency spikes Poor user experience Limited monitoring difficult troubleshooting Security concerns Compliance risks The lesson was clear: Production readiness is not about making the agent smarter. It is about making the agent reliable. My Observation While experimenting with AI agents in Microsoft Foundry, I found that model selection was rarely the primary challenge. Most production issues stemmed from grounding quality, tool reliability, observability, and security controls. Addressing these operational concerns often had a greater impact on user trust than changing the underlying model. Production AI Agent Reference Architecture A production-ready AI agent typically includes several components beyond the language model itself. Layer Technology User Interface Web App, Teams, Copilot Agent Runtime Microsoft Foundry Agent Service Knowledge Layer Azure AI Search Foundation Model GPT-4o Tool Integration APIs and Functions Monitoring Azure Monitor Security Managed Identity and Key Vault Request Flow Lesson 1: Start with the Use Case, Not the Model One of the most common mistakes is beginning with model selection. Many teams ask: Which model should I use? Should I choose GPT-4o? Should I use a larger context window? A more important question is: What business problem are we solving? Before evaluating models, define: Users Business goals Success metrics Compliance requirements Operational constraints An enterprise support agent and a financial compliance agent may use the same model but require completely different architectures. Key Takeaway Successful AI projects start with business outcomes, not model benchmarks. Lesson 2: Grounding Matters More Than Prompting Prompt engineering helps. Grounding drives trust. Without access to reliable enterprise data, even advanced models can generate confident but incorrect responses. Grounding Sources Azure AI Search SharePoint documents Internal knowledge bases Structured enterprise data Approved policy repositories Example from azure.ai.projects import AIProjectClient # Configure grounding with Azure AI Search agent = client.agents.create_agent( model="gpt-4o", name="support-agent", tools=[ { "type": "azure_ai_search", "azure_ai_search": { "index_name": "support-kb", "endpoint": "https://your-search.search.windows.net" } } ] ) In production environments, grounding through Azure AI Search helps agents retrieve trusted enterprise information rather than relying solely on model knowledge. This significantly improves response accuracy and trustworthiness. Try it yourself: Configure Azure AI Search as a knowledge source in Microsoft Foundry and compare grounded versus non-grounded responses. Key Takeaway Reliable retrieval is usually more valuable than sophisticated prompting. Lesson 3: Design Tool Usage Carefully AI agents become powerful when they can interact with external tools. Examples include: CRM systems Databases APIs Ticketing systems Business applications However, every tool increase complexity. Ask yourself: When should the agent call the tool? What happens if the tool is unavailable? How should failures be handled? Example Failure Scenario +-----------------------------+ | User asks for invoice status | +-------------+---------------+ | v +-----------------------------+ | Agent calls Finance API | +-------------+---------------+ | v +-----------------------------+ | API timeout detected | +-------------+---------------+ | v +-----------------------------+ | Fallback response returned | +-----------------------------+ Example Failure Scenario: A production-ready agent should gracefully handle external service failures and return a fallback response instead of failing completely. Key Takeaway Design for failure before designing for capability. Lesson 4: Evaluate Before Deployment Many teams test only for response quality. Production agents require broader evaluation. Evaluation Area Why It Matters Accuracy Correct answers Grounding Quality Faithful responses Latency User experience Safety Risk reduction Cost Sustainability Tool Success Rate Reliability Evaluation should become part of every deployment pipeline. Key Takeaway You cannot improve what you do not measure. Lesson 5: Make Observability a First-Class Feature Observability is often neglected until something breaks. Unfortunately, production systems always encounter unexpected behavior. Track metrics such as: Metric Purpose Request Volume Demand tracking Average Latency Performance Token Usage Cost visibility Grounding Success Rate Quality Tool Failure Rate Reliability User Satisfaction Business value Setting Up Tracing in Foundry from azure.ai.projects import AIProjectClient from azure.monitor.opentelemetry import configure_azure_monitor # Configure Azure Monitor for tracing configure_azure_monitor( connection_string="InstrumentationKey=xxx" ) # Run the agent response = agent.run( thread_id=thread.id, instructions="..." ) Tracing provides visibility into how an AI agent processes requests, invokes tools, and generates responses. By integrating Azure Monitor, teams can track latency, identify failed tool calls, analyze token usage, and troubleshoot unexpected agent behavior. This observability is essential for operating AI agents reliably in production environments. Try it yourself: Enabling tracing and monitoring for a Microsoft Foundry agent using Azure Monitor. Example Dashboard +-----------------------------+ | Production Monitoring Dashboard | +-----------------------------+ | Requests Today | 5,120 | | Average Latency | 3.2s | | Grounding Success | 97% | | Tool Failure Rate | 1% | | Average Tokens | 2,800 | +-----------------------------+ Monitoring production metrics helps teams understand agent performance, reliability, and cost efficiency. Key indicators such as latency, grounding success rate, tool failure rate, and token consumption provide valuable insights into the operational health of an AI agent and enable proactive troubleshooting before users are impacted. Key Takeaway What you can't observe, you can't effectively operate or improve. Tracing is a critical capability for maintaining production-ready AI agents. Lesson 6: Monitor Token Consumption Token usage directly impacts cost. A highly successful agent can quickly become expensive if token growth is unmanaged. Common optimization techniques: Optimization Benefit Prompt Compression Lower token usage Response Caching Reduced model calls RAG Filtering Focused context Context Trimming Smaller requests Model Selection Cost control Key Takeaway Cost optimization should be planned from day one. Lesson 7: Build Security into the Design Security should never be an afterthought. Enterprise AI systems must enforce the same security boundaries as traditional applications. Recommended Controls Control Purpose Managed Identity Secure authentication Azure Key Vault Secret management RBAC Authorization Audit Logs Compliance Content Filtering Safety Private Endpoints Network Security Guiding Principle An AI agent should never access data beyond a user's permissions. Key Takeaway Security is a design requirement, not a deployment task. Lesson 8: Expect Tool Failures External dependencies inevitably fail. Production-ready agents should anticipate: API downtime Authentication failures Network interruptions Rate limiting Unexpected responses Recommended Strategy Key Takeaway async def call_tool_with_resilience(tool_name, params): try: result = await tool_client.execute( tool_name, params, timeout=5.0 ) return result except TimeoutError: return await cache.get_fallback( tool_name, params ) Example Outcome: Introducing retry and fallback logic can significantly improve reliability. By handling temporary API failures gracefully and returning cached responses, when necessary, agents can reduce user-facing errors and provide a more consistent experience. Lesson 9: Evaluate the Process, Not Just the Output A correct answer does not always mean the process was correct. In production environments, teams should evaluate not only the final response but also the steps the agent took to generate that response. An answer may appear accurate even when it was based on incorrect retrieval results, unnecessary tool calls, or incomplete citations. Review: Retrieval quality Tool execution Citation accuracy Security compliance Reasoning path User Query | v Retrieval | v Tool Execution | v Reasoning | v Response For example, an agent might generate the correct answer by chance, even though it retrieved irrelevant documents or used an inefficient workflow. Without evaluating the process, these hidden issues may go unnoticed until they affect reliability, compliance, or user trust. Key Takeaway Inspect the entire workflow, not just the final answer. Lesson 10: Think Like a Production Engineer As adoption grows, operational excellence becomes the differentiator. Ask questions such as: Can we troubleshoot failures? Can we measure business impact? Can we control costs? Can we scale safely? Can we govern usage? These questions become more important than model selection over time. Key Takeaway Production success comes from engineering discipline, not model size. Microsoft Foundry Features That Helped Improve Reliability Foundry Capability Production Benefit Agent Service Agent orchestration Knowledge Sources Grounded responses Evaluations Quality measurement Tracing Workflow visibility Model Catalog Model flexibility Safety Systems Risk mitigation These capabilities help teams move beyond proofs of concept and build solutions that are ready for real-world adoption. Production Readiness Checklist Before releasing an AI agent, verify: ✅ Business goals defined ✅ Grounding strategy implemented ✅ Security controls enabled ✅ Evaluation pipeline established ✅ Monitoring configured ✅ Failure handling tested ✅ Cost optimization reviewed ✅ Governance process defined ✅ User feedback loop available ✅ Deployment rollback strategy prepared Get Started with Production-Ready Agents If you're building AI agents using Microsoft Foundry, start by focusing on grounding, observability, security, and evaluation from day one. Suggested next steps: Build your first agent in Microsoft Foundry Configure Azure AI Search grounding Enable tracing and monitoring Evaluate agent quality before deployment Add resilience and fallback strategies Which of these 10 lessons has been most valuable in your own AI agent journey? Share your experiences and insights in the comments.Introducing GPT-transcribe and GPT-live-transcribe in Microsoft Foundry
A transcription model hears “account number 8-4-7-2” but returns “account number eighty-four seventy-two.” A single error can break a downstream automation workflow. Developers building voice applications need transcription models that can handle real-world audio conditions, natural speech patterns, and business-critical details, including codes, dates, addresses, account numbers, mixed-language conversations, specialized terminology, and quiet or low-volume speech. GPT-transcribe and GPT-live-transcribe do just that and are available in Microsoft Foundry today. Two updates to the audio model family designed to improve automatic speech recognition across asynchronous transcription and live streaming scenarios. Built for More Accurate Transcription in Real-World Audio GPT-transcribe is the highest accuracy ASR model from Open AI, designed for asynchronous speech-to-text transcription of completed audio files and batch workloads. It accepts audio input and returns text output, making it a strong fit for workflows that process recorded, uploaded, or submitted audio, including meeting recordings, voicemails, and media files. GPT-live-transcribe is designed for low-latency streaming transcription through the Realtime API. It supports real-time audio input and text output, helping developers build live experiences where speech needs to be transcribed continuously as audio arrives. This model also introduces “tunable latency” where developers can adjust the latency/accuracy trade-off for streaming. It is a strong fit for live captions, voice assistants, contact center workflows, accessibility experiences, field service applications, real-time intake, and monitoring systems. Together, these models give developers transcription options in Microsoft Foundry for stored audio and live voice interactions. Their text output can support downstream workflows such as search, summarization, routing, analytics, automation, and quality review. What’s New in Both Models The features of the new transcription models focus on improving transcription quality in real-world audio environments where speech can be brief, noisy, accented, quiet, domain-specific, or mixed across languages. Key capabilities include: Background noise: Helps isolate speech in noisy environments so transcription quality can remain more reliable when audio conditions are not controlled. Short utterances: Improves recognition of brief commands, confirmations, interruptions, and clipped speech that can be difficult to capture accurately. Alphanumeric perception: Strengthens transcription of IDs, codes, phone numbers, dates, addresses, account numbers, and mixed letter-number sequences. Domain terminology understanding: Improves recognition of specialized vocabulary used in product, workflow, industry, and business-process contexts. Codemix: Improves understanding when speakers switch between languages within a conversation or utterance. Context awareness: Uses topic hints and past conversation context to improve transcription accuracy and help maintain consistency. Accent robustness: Improves handling of regional accents, non-native accents, dialects, and varied speaking styles. Whispering: Improves recognition of quiet or low-volume speech, including whispered commands and private dictation. Live captioning and accessibility experiences: Generate real-time captions for meetings, events, media experiences, and assistive applications. Contact center and voice workflows: Capture spoken details as conversations happen, supporting routing, quality review, summarization, and downstream automation. Monitoring, analytics, and compliance workflows: Provide text visibility into ongoing spoken input so teams can analyze, review, and act on conversation data. Also Available: GPT-realtime-2.1 and GPT-realtime-mini-2.1 gpt-realtime-2.1 and gpt-realtime-mini-2.1 are also available in Microsoft Foundry for developers building speech-to-speech applications. Unlike GPT-transcribe and GPT-live-transcribe, which return text, these models accept audio and generate audio for low-latency conversational experiences over the Realtime API. gpt-realtime-2.1 focuses on interaction quality and robustness, while gpt-realtime-mini-2.1 provides a smaller, faster, and more cost-efficient option for high-volume deployments. Together with GPT-transcribe and GPT-live-transcribe, these realtime audio updates give developers more flexibility to build voice applications that need both accurate transcription and responsive spoken interaction, whether the experience is centered on capturing speech as text, responding with audio, or combining both patterns in a single workflow. Use Cases by Model GPT-transcribe Use GPT-transcribe when the application needs accurate text transcripts from recorded, uploaded, or submitted audio. It is a strong fit for meeting and call transcription, media transcription, customer support intake, voicemail and message processing, quality review, compliance workflows, and domain-specific transcription where short utterances, structured alphanumeric details, specialized terminology, accents, background noise, code-mixed speech, or quiet audio can affect downstream accuracy. GPT-live-transcribe Use GPT-live-transcribe when the application needs live streaming transcription with low latency. It is designed for real-time captions, accessibility experiences, contact center transcription, voice-enabled workflows, live monitoring, operational dashboards, and agent-assist scenarios where spoken input needs to become text continuously as the interaction unfolds. Pricing The following pricing example shows Global Standard rates by model and modality. Rates for GPT-realtime-2.1 and GPT-realtime-mini-2.1 are listed per 1 million tokens. GPT-transcribe and GPT-live-transcribe are listed per audio hour. Model Deployment Modality Input Cached Input Output GPT-realtime-2.1 Global Standard Audio $32.00 $0.40 $64.00 Text $4.00 $0.40 $24.00 Image $5.00 $0.50 -- GPT-realtime-mini-2.1 Global Standard Audio $10.00 $0.30 $20.00 Text $0.60 $0.06 $2.40 Image $0.80 $0.08 -- GPT-live-transcribe Global Standard Audio -- -- $1.02/hour GPT-transcribe Global Standard Audio -- -- $0.27/hour Getting Started Choose GPT-transcribe when your application processes complete audio files asynchronously, or GPT-live-transcribe when it needs text continuously as speech arrives. Try the models in Microsoft Foundry, then use the resources below to explore the Realtime API, follow the audio quickstart, compare available models, and review Azure OpenAI in Foundry Models documentation. For asynchronous transcription, submit a complete audio file to GPT-transcribe and process the returned transcript after the request completes. This pattern works well for recordings, voicemails, and uploaded media. For streaming transcription, open a Realtime API session with GPT-live-transcribe, send audio as it is captured, and handle incremental transcript events. This pattern supports live captioning and agent-assist experiences that need text during an active interaction. Refer to the linked quickstart and Realtime API documentation for current SDK setup, authentication, request schemas, and supported audio formats. Explore Microsoft Learn documentation to learn more: Use GPT Realtime API for speech and audio with Azure OpenAI in Foundry Models GPT Realtime audio quickstart Azure OpenAI in Foundry Models overviewPost-Stream Refinement is now generally available in Microsoft Foundry
When we introduced Post-Stream Refinement in public preview earlier this year, it closed the oldest trade-off in real-time speech: you could finally keep instant streaming results and get a highly accurate final transcript, with no penalty to first-token latency. A second recognition pass runs in parallel with streaming and replaces each final segment with a more accurate version once the utterance completes. Today, Post-Stream Refinement reaches general availability for Azure AI Speech in Microsoft Foundry, backed by a production SLA. Just as important, it now ships with the capabilities production transcription actually depends on: diarization to preserve who said what, phrase lists for your product names and domain vocabulary, and a much wider footprint of 19 locales across 22 Azure regions. Everything you already know about Post-Stream Refinement still applies. The real-time contract is unchanged, your partial results stream exactly as before, and you enable refinement by setting a single property on your existing SpeechConfig. What changes at GA is that the refined transcript is now production-grade and speaker-aware. 📖 Read the Documentation What's new at general availability If you have already used Post-Stream Refinement in preview, here is exactly what changes at GA, and what stays the same. The streaming path and SDK contract are untouched; the refinement pass is now production-ready and gains speaker and vocabulary features. How Post-Stream Refinement works Real-time and final results serve different needs. Partial results must appear quickly so captions, voice interfaces, and agent turn-taking stay responsive. Final results need enough context to support storage, search, summarization, and business workflows. Post-Stream Refinement runs both at once: a fast streaming pass and a deeper refinement pass over the same audio, in parallel. Because the two passes share one input stream, enabling refinement does not require a second transcription job or a separate client pipeline. Your existing recognition events and partial-result handling stay exactly as they are. Speaker attribution with diarization New at GA, diarization is supported on the Post-Stream Refinement path, so the refined final transcript keeps its speaker labels. That makes the release a strong fit for meetings, contact centers, interviews, and any workflow where the transcript needs to identify who spoke, not just what was said. The refinement pass improves the wording, including proper nouns and named entities, while every utterance stays attributed to the right speaker. Phrase lists for your vocabulary Phrase lists let the recognizer prioritize the names and terms that matter to your application: product catalogs, medical and technical vocabulary, organization names, and acronyms that general speech models might not recognize consistently. At GA you can pair phrase lists with refinement so the second pass has both broad audio context and your domain vocabulary to draw on, which is where the largest accuracy gains on named entities show up. Quality impact In internal testing and partner evaluations across supported locales, Post-Stream Refinement reduced final-transcript word error rate by double-digit relative percentages compared with standard real-time transcription, with the largest gains on the hardest content: long utterances, proper nouns, and domain-specific speech. Pairing phrase lists with refinement improves named-entity accuracy further. Partial-result latency is unchanged; only the final transcript is refined. The refined final result may add a small amount of latency to the final segment because refinement happens after the segment audio is received. Partial results are unaffected. Supported languages and regions General availability supports 19 locales. You declare one locale per session, so the service is tuned to the language you expect. Alongside the Tier-1 languages, GA adds Indic locales, including Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi, and Telugu. Post-Stream Refinement is generally available in 22 Azure regions across the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Proven at Microsoft scale The technology behind Post-Stream Refinement already powers meeting transcription and Microsoft 365 Copilot experiences in Microsoft Teams, serving millions of users across meetings, webinars, and live events every day. General availability brings the same quality bar to every Azure AI Speech customer through a supported SDK integration, not a research prototype. Preview customers across industries, including automotive, consumer electronics, and aviation, reported positive gains in transcription quality, with the clearest improvements on the hardest content: proper nouns, long-form speech, and domain-specific audio. Several are now moving those workloads into production on the GA release. Get started Enabling Post-Stream Refinement is a small configuration change on your existing SpeechConfig. You will need: Speech SDK 1.50 or later. Earlier versions do not support the refinement path. A Speech resource in one of the supported regions listed above. The session locale you expect, set on the recognizer. Set the post-processing option to PostRefinement. The example below also shows the optional phrase list for your domain vocabulary. import azure.cognitiveservices.speech as speechsdk speech_config = speechsdk.SpeechConfig( subscription="YourSpeechKey", region="YourSpeechRegion") # Declare one locale for the session speech_config.speech_recognition_language = "en-US" # 1) Refine the final transcript (Post-Stream Refinement) speech_config.set_property( speechsdk.PropertyId.SpeechServiceResponse_PostProcessingOption, "PostRefinement") audio_config = speechsdk.AudioConfig(use_default_microphone=True) recognizer = speechsdk.SpeechRecognizer( speech_config=speech_config, audio_config=audio_config) # 2) (Optional) Phrase list for names, acronyms, and domain terms phrase_list = speechsdk.PhraseListGrammar.from_recognizer(recognizer) for term in ["Contoso", "Fabrikam", "Foundry", "OAuth"]: phrase_list.addPhrase(term) Your existing recognition events and partial-result handling remain unchanged. For speaker attribution, enable diarization through the established real-time diarization path; refinement applies to the final transcript while speaker labels are preserved. Choose the right release for your workload Post-Stream Refinement now has two paths. They are the same product family with a different feature boundary, so match the path to what your customer needs. Monolingual PSR — generally available Multilingual PSR — public preview Language selection One locale declared per session Automatic detection and code-switching in a single stream (open-range, no locale declared) Supported locales 19 locales, including Indic bn / mr / pa / te 25 languages / 29 locales, auto-detected Azure regions 22 Azure regions across the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific 6 Azure regions Phrase lists & diarization Supported Only diarization is supported Working across languages? If a single stream needs to handle multiple languages or code-switching without a declared locale, use Multilingual Post-Stream Refinement, now in public preview. For a known session locale with phrase lists and diarization, monolingual GA is the right path. Try Post-Stream Refinement Today Turn on higher-accuracy, language-aware transcription in your Azure AI Speech applications with a single configuration change. 📖 Read the Documentation We would love your feedback. Try Post-Stream Refinement in your applications and tell us how it improves your transcription quality.For the first time, real-time transcription goes multilingual
When we introduced Post-Stream Refinement earlier this year, it closed the oldest gap in real-time speech: you could finally get instant streaming results and a highly accurate final transcript, with no latency penalty. But it kept one hard requirement — you had to tell the service, up front, which single language to expect. Real-world speech does not work that way. People code-switch mid-sentence, product and brand names cross languages, and a global app serves users who simply speak differently from one session to the next. Today we remove that requirement. Multilingual Post-Stream Refinement enters public preview for Azure AI Speech in Microsoft Foundry, and for the first time ever a single real-time stream can transcribe multiple languages in one session — the spoken language is detected automatically, no locale is declared in advance, and the final transcript is refined for accuracy. Everything you already know about Post-Stream Refinement still applies; what changes is that the refinement pass itself is now multilingual. 📖 Read the Documentation What's New in This Release If you have already used Post-Stream Refinement, here is exactly what changes with the multilingual preview — and what stays the same: Quality Impact In internal testing and partner evaluations across Tier-1 locales, multilingual Post-Stream Refinement reduced word error rate (WER) by approximately 10% relative on average, with double-digit relative reductions on the hardest cases — long utterances, proper nouns, and multilingual or code-switched speech. Partial-result latency is unchanged; only the final transcript is refined. Gains are relative reductions versus the standard real-time model and vary by language, acoustic conditions, and content type. The refined final result may add a small amount of latency to the final segment; partial results are unaffected. Supported Languages and Regions The public preview supports 15 Tier-1 locales. Because language is detected automatically, a single stream can contain any mix of them: Available in these Azure regions: Real-World Impact Preview customers across industries — including travel, consumer electronics, automotive, aviation, and media — have reported positive gains in transcription quality. Customers testing multilingual and domain-specific audio have observed the clearest improvements on the hardest content: proper nouns, code-switching, and long-form speech. Several are actively validating the feature on their own audio ahead of general availability. Get Started Enabling multilingual Post-Stream Refinement is a small configuration change on your existing SpeechConfig. You will need: Speech SDK 1.50 or later. Earlier versions do not support the multilingual path. A Speech resource in one of the supported regions listed above. Auto-detect language configuration (open range) so the service identifies the language from the audio — no candidate list required. Set the post-processing option to PostRefinement and pass an open-range AutoDetectSourceLanguageConfig when you create the recognizer. Here is a complete, copy-paste Python example, including the optional end-of-utterance detection line: import azure.cognitiveservices.speech as speechsdk speech_config = speechsdk.SpeechConfig( subscription="YourSpeechKey", region="YourSpeechRegion") # 1) Refine the final transcript (Post-Stream Refinement) speech_config.set_property( speechsdk.PropertyId.SpeechServiceResponse_PostProcessingOption, "PostRefinement") # 2) Multilingual auto-detect - no candidate language list needed auto_detect_config = speechsdk.languageconfig.AutoDetectSourceLanguageConfig() audio_config = speechsdk.AudioConfig(use_default_microphone=True) recognizer = speechsdk.SpeechRecognizer( speech_config=speech_config, auto_detect_source_language_config=auto_detect_config, audio_config=audio_config) 💡 Tip: Refinement matters most for applications that store or process the final transcript — meeting notes, call analytics, compliance archives, AI summarization. If you only use partial results for a live display and discard them, your real-time UX (already fast) is unchanged, while any final transcript you keep improves. Try Multilingual Post-Stream Refinement Today Turn on higher-accuracy, language-aware transcription in your Azure AI Speech applications with a single configuration change. Available now in public preview in Microsoft Foundry. 📖 Read the Documentation We would love your feedback. Try Post-Stream Refinement in your applications and tell us how it improves your transcription quality.Evaluate before you ship: introducing the Voice Live Evaluation Harness
You've built a voice agent on Azure Voice Live. It demos beautifully. Then a teammate asks the question that keeps every voice-agent team up at night: "How do we know it's actually good — across 200 customer calls, not the three we just listened to?" Until today, the honest answer was: put on headphones. Manual listening. Subjective scoring in a spreadsheet. No baseline, no regression signal, no way to defend a model swap with data. We're releasing the Voice Live Evaluation Harness to change that. It's an open-source, deployable evaluation pipeline that runs pre-recorded multi-turn audio through your Voice Live agent and scores every turn with the same evaluators built into Microsoft Foundry — automatically, repeatably, and in parallel. TL;DR Two flavors, one repo. Run the CLI harness locally against a Foundry project for fast iteration, or deploy the evaluation agent into your Azure subscription with the Azure Developer CLI (azd) for a fully-hosted evaluation backend. 13 built-in evaluators score every turn — intent resolution, task adherence, task completion, response completeness, tool-call accuracy, groundedness, and more — viewable per-turn and in aggregate inside the Foundry portal. Supports the three Voice Live modes you actually ship in — Semantic VAD, Push-to-Talk, and Foundry Agent mode — including multi-turn conversations with tool calls and grounding. Grows with your agent. Start with the sample datasets, then layer in audio collected from user testing and production traffic so your evaluation set matures alongside the agent. 🔗 Repo: microsoft-foundry/voicelive-evaluation · Docs: Evaluate Voice Live agents (preview) Why systematic evaluation matters for voice agents Text agents have a mature evaluation story. Voice agents don't — and the gaps actually matter more, because every voice failure happens in real time, in front of a customer, on a phone line you can't easily replay. The Voice Live Evaluation Harness closes that gap with four concrete capabilities: Establish a quality baseline. Run a representative audio dataset through your agent and get scores you can publish as your launch bar. Compare configurations side-by-side. Swap the underlying model (GPT-Realtime 1.5, Azure-Realtime, MAI-Transcribe-1.5), change the voice, tune VAD thresholds — and see exactly which knobs moved which scores. Catch regressions before users do. Wire it into CI and fail the build when intent resolution drops below your threshold. Optimize with data, not vibes. When task-completion drops, drill into the per-turn scores to see whether the agent failed to call the right tool, misunderstood intent, or generated an incomplete response. Keep iterating as production data rolls in. Start with the sample datasets, then grow your evaluation set with audio captured from internal testing, pilot users, and real production traffic. Re-run after every prompt tweak or model swap so the harness becomes a continuous quality signal — not a one-time launch checklist. How it works The pipeline is a five-stage loop: Audio Dataset. Multi-turn audio + expected behaviors in a simple JSONL schema. Four sample datasets ship in the repo (travel planning, complex data analytics, tool-calling tests, batch multi-conversation) so you can run end-to-end on day one. Voice Live API. Pick your Voice Live mode (Semantic VAD, PTT, or Foundry Agent), model, voice, and turn-detection settings via a JSON config file, then stream each turn of audio through the API — locally with the CLI harness, or, if you've deployed the evaluation agent, via the hosted Container App for long-running batches in your own subscription. Transcript + Response. Every turn produces an agent transcript, the model's response, and any tool calls it made — captured automatically for scoring. Foundry Evaluators. 13 built-in evaluators — powered by the same Foundry evaluator models (GPT-4.1-mini and o4-mini) used across Microsoft Foundry — judge every turn on intent resolution, task adherence, tool-call accuracy, groundedness, and more. Quality Scores. Per-turn and aggregate scores land in the Microsoft Foundry portal under your project's Evaluation tab — sortable, filterable, comparable across runs. Then loop. Audio captured from internal testing, pilots, and production traffic feeds back into the dataset — each pass makes the next evaluation more representative of what users actually do. What gets measured The accelerator ships 13 built-in evaluators out of the box, covering the dimensions that matter most for production voice agents: Category Evaluators Intent & task quality Intent Resolution · Task Adherence · Task Completion · Response Completeness Tool calling Tool Call Accuracy · Tool Call Parameter Validity · Tool Result Usage · Tool Call Success Content quality Groundedness · Relevance · Fluency · Coherence Conversational dynamics Turn-taking quality Every evaluator runs against the same Foundry evaluator models (GPT-4.1-mini and o4-mini) that power evaluation across the rest of Microsoft Foundry — so your voice-agent scores are directly comparable to your text-agent scores. Run the CLI locally against your existing Voice Live endpoint If you already have a Voice Live agent deployed and just want fast iteration on a laptop: git clone https://github.com/microsoft-foundry/voicelive-evaluation.git cd voicelive-evaluation/evaluation_harness python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate pip install -r requirements.txt cp .sample_env .env # Edit .env with your AZURE_VOICELIVE_ENDPOINT python voice_agent_evaluation.py \ --config configs/sample_vad_realtime.json The full walkthrough — dataset schema, configuration reference, score interpretation, and troubleshooting — is in the documentation. Get started Repo: microsoft-foundry/voicelive-evaluation Docs: How to evaluate Voice Live agents (preview) We'd love your feedback — try it, file issues, and tell us which evaluators you wish you had."Not Available in Your Region" Isn't a Dead End: A Security Assessment of Global Deployments
You want to build with the latest Microsoft Foundry model. You checked the regional availability, and it isn't there yet — only Global Standard. Now you're weighing the capability you actually need against your instinct to keep everything in a regional SKU. This post is for that moment. This is a more common situation than people realise. Microsoft typically releases new and preview models on Global first, then expands into specific regions over time as capacity is built out. It isn't an oversight. It's how Microsoft makes new capabilities available to the broadest set of customers as quickly as possible. If you want those capabilities, Global is the path. The good news is that the path is well-paved. Microsoft Foundry Global Standard is a secure, enterprise-grade deployment type backed by the same Azure controls you already rely on, with explicit contractual commitments on how your data is used. The data protection guarantees don't change because the model is newer or because regional capacity hasn't caught up — they're the same on day one of a new model on Global as they are on a model that's been deployed regionally for a year. The rest of this post walks through what Microsoft commits to, what you get out of the box, what you add on top, and the small number of cases where Global is genuinely the wrong choice. It's written for three audiences: Developers who want to know if they're allowed to ship on Global. Solution architects weighing the model choice against latency, quota, and resilience. Security architects who need to map Foundry's behaviour to enterprise controls before they sign off. Where does my data actually go? This is the question that drives most of the concern, and the answer has two parts. Mixing them up is what causes the confusion. Data at rest stays in the Azure geography of your Foundry resource. That includes your configuration, uploaded files, stored artifacts, and logs. This is true for Global deployments, exactly the same as it is for regional ones. Microsoft commits to this in the Azure data residency page. Data in processing is different. When you send a prompt, the model processes it in memory for a few hundred milliseconds and returns a response. For Global deployments, that processing can happen in any Azure region where the model is hosted. This is how Microsoft gives you the highest available capacity and the broadest model access. The prompt and response are not persisted as part of inference processing in the region that processed them. Once you separate "where my data lives" from "where the request runs," the residency picture becomes much clearer. Your customer data lives where you put it. The model that processes that data runs on Microsoft's global fleet. You can read the official description on the Microsoft Foundry deployment types page. What Microsoft commits These commitments are contractual, not marketing language — they sit inside Microsoft's Product Terms and Data Protection Addendum. According to the data privacy page for Azure Direct Models, your prompts and completions are not used to train Microsoft or OpenAI models, and your fine-tuned models are exclusively yours. Microsoft is also explicit that your data does not touch consumer OpenAI services: "Microsoft hosts the Azure Direct Models in Microsoft's Azure environment and Azure Direct Models do NOT interact with any services operated by Azure Direct Model providers, for example, OpenAI (e.g. ChatGPT, or the OpenAI API)." For partner and community models served through serverless APIs, the model catalog data privacy page confirms that those models are stateless and that Microsoft does not use prompts or outputs to train any model. What Global does NOT do A Global deployment does not replicate your stored data into other regions, does not expose your prompts to consumer OpenAI services, and does not use your inputs or outputs for training. The only cross‑region behavior is the transient execution of model inference, which is stateless and not customer‑addressable. What Global gives you on day one Before you configure anything yourself, a Global Standard deployment already includes the following: Encryption at rest using FIPS 140-2 compliant 256-bit AES with Microsoft-managed keys, applied transparently. See the Microsoft Foundry architecture page. Encryption in transit using TLS 1.2 or higher, enforced by the platform. Microsoft Entra ID authentication with Azure RBAC. Foundry separates control-plane actions (like creating deployments) from data-plane actions (like invoking models), so you can grant least privilege without writing custom roles. Tenant isolation. Your Foundry resource lives in your subscription, your data lives in your tenant, and any fine-tuned models you create are exclusively yours. Compliance inheritance. Foundry runs on Azure and inherits Azure's compliance controls, including ISO 27001, SOC 1/2/3, HIPAA, PCI DSS, FedRAMP, and many others. The current authoritative list is in the Azure compliance offerings catalogue and the Microsoft Trust Center. This baseline, with no extra configuration, already meets the security posture most enterprise teams target for new workloads. The controls you already know Securing Microsoft Foundry uses the same building blocks as securing any other Azure PaaS service. If your team already knows how to lock down Azure Storage or Azure SQL, you already know how to lock down Foundry. Developers see familiar patterns. Architects get a clean fit into the landing zone. Security architects review the same control surfaces they review elsewhere. The controls you'd apply are exactly what you'd expect: Private networking: Map the Foundry resource to a private IP using Private Link, back it with Private DNS, disable public network access, and route egress through Azure Firewall or an NVA. For agent workloads, Microsoft publishes a private networking template for Foundry Agent Service you can deploy with Bicep or Terraform. Note that Private Link secures the path to the endpoint, not the routing of requests inside the model fleet — you get a private network path without giving up Global's capacity benefits. Azure APIM GenAI gateway: Put Azure API Management's GenAI gateway in front of your Foundry Global deployments to control who can call models, how much they can use, and under what policies, independent of where inference runs. It enforces central auth, per‑consumer token limits, logging, and policy controls, turning Global deployments from “globally available” into centrally governed and auditable services. Identity and secrets: Use Managed Identity for application-to-model calls and avoid embedding API keys in code. Apply Conditional Access to admin sign-in and use Privileged Identity Management for just-in-time elevation on admin roles. Customer-managed keys: If your compliance regime requires key ownership, enable CMK on the Foundry resource via Azure Key Vault for rotation, revocation, and separation of duties. Logging and monitoring: Send diagnostics to a customer-owned Log Analytics workspace, enable the Azure Activity Log, and alert on token-usage spikes, unusual source IPs, and repeated authentication failures. Governance at scale: Use Azure Policy to enforce baselines (allowed locations, mandatory diagnostics, required private access) across your tenant, and pair it with Microsoft Defender for Cloud for continuous posture management. The risk that deserves attention: Data Exfiltration The most common security risk in any LLM deployment, on any SKU, is not Microsoft's infrastructure. It's the application layer. Examples include over-broad RAG retrieval pulling data the user shouldn't see, a tool-calling agent reaching an unintended destination, or a prompt that quietly echoes PII into a downstream log. These risks exist on Global, Data Zone, and Regional deployments equally. Choosing a more restrictive SKU does not mitigate them. The good news is that the mitigations are well understood and entirely under your control: Use Private Endpoints for Storage, AI Search, Cosmos DB, and any other backing services your application uses for RAG, so retrieval traffic stays off the public internet. For tool-calling and agent scenarios, route outbound traffic through Azure Firewall with FQDN filtering, and keep an explicit allowlist of destinations the agent is permitted to reach. Apply DLP and redaction at the application layer for high-risk data classes, before that data ever becomes part of a prompt. Treat prompts and completions as transient. Don't persist them unless you have a specific, auditable reason to do so. Doing this work on a Global deployment gives you exactly the same protection as doing it on a regional one. Is Global Deployment right for you? For most teams building on Microsoft Foundry, the answer is yes. Global Standard gives you: The highest default quotas and the broadest model availability in the catalogue. First access to new models and features, often weeks or months ahead of regional rollouts. Elastic absorption of demand spikes through Microsoft's global capacity pool. A simpler architecture, with no regional duplication or custom failover logic. The full Azure security stack: Entra ID, RBAC, Private Link, CMK, Azure Policy, Defender for Cloud, and Monitor. Contractual guarantees that your data isn't used for training and isn't shared with consumer OpenAI services. Global is not the right choice when a specific regulation explicitly requires inference processing to occur within a named country or zone. Note the word "processing" there: not data at rest, but the transient processing of the prompt itself. These cases do exist, particularly in some government, healthcare, and financial sector contexts, and Microsoft Foundry offers Data Zone (US or EU) and Regional SKUs for exactly those situations. But unless someone has pointed you at a specific clause in a specific regulation that names processing locality, you most likely don't need to step down from Global. Summary Microsoft Foundry Global deployments are secure, compliant, and enterprise‑ready. Data at rest remains in your chosen Azure geography. Prompts and completions are not used for training and do not interact with consumer AI services. Encryption, identity, networking, logging, governance, and monitoring are all first‑class Azure controls. Modified Abuse Monitoring is available for qualifying enterprise customers where required. A short summary for each audience: Developers: you can build on Global with confidence, using the Azure patterns you already know. Solution architects: Global is a sensible default unless a regulatory requirement specifically rules it out. Data Zone and Regional remain available for the cases that need them. Security architects: the control surfaces are familiar, the contractual commitments are explicit, and Global can be approved on the same basis as any other Azure PaaS service handling equivalent data classifications. If you've been defaulting to a regional SKU "just to be safe," it's worth taking a fresh look at whether Global actually fits your workload. In most cases, it will.
Three tiers of Agentic AI - and when to use none of them
Every enterprise has an AI agent. Almost none of them work in production. Walk into any enterprise technology review right now and you will find the same thing. Pilots running. Demos recorded. Steering committees impressed. And somewhere in the background, a quiet acknowledgment that the thing does not actually work at scale yet. OutSystems surveyed nearly 1,900 global IT leaders and found that 96% of organizations are already running AI agents in some capacity. Yet only one in nine has those agents operating in production at scale. The experiments are everywhere. The production systems are not. That gap is not a capability problem. The infrastructure has matured. Tool calling is standard across all major models. Frameworks like LangGraph, CrewAI, and Microsoft Agent Framework abstract orchestration logic. Model Context Protocol standardizes how agents access external tools and data sources. Google's Agent-to-Agent protocol now under Linux Foundation governance with over 50 enterprise technology partners including Salesforce, SAP, ServiceNow, and Workday standardizes how agents coordinate with each other. The protocols are in place. The frameworks are production ready. The gap is a selection and governance problem. Teams are building agents on problems that do not need them. Choosing the wrong tier for the ones that do. And treating governance as a compliance checkbox to add after launch, rather than an architectural input to design in from the start. The same OutSystems research found that 94% of organizations are concerned that AI sprawl is increasing complexity, technical debt, and security risk and only 12% have a centralized approach to managing it. Teams are deploying agents the way shadow IT spread through enterprises a decade ago: fast, fragmented, and without a shared definition of what production-ready actually means. I've built agentic systems across enterprise clients in logistics, retail, and B2B services. The failures I keep seeing are not technology failures. They are architecture and judgment failures problems that existed before the first line of code was written, in the conversation where nobody asked the prior question. This article is the framework I use before any platform conversation starts. What has genuinely shifted in the agentic landscape Three changes are shaping how enterprise agent architecture should be designed today and they are not incremental improvements on what existed before. The first is the move from single agents to multi-agent systems. Databricks' State of AI Agents report drawing on data from over 20,000 organizations, including more than 60% of the Fortune 500 found that multi-agent workflows on their platform grew 327% in just four months. This is not experimentation. It is production architecture shifting. A single agent handling everything routing, retrieval, reasoning, execution is being replaced by specialized agents coordinating through defined interfaces. A financial organization, for example, might run separate agents for intent classification, document retrieval, and compliance checking each narrow in scope, each connected to the next through a standardized protocol rather than tightly coupled code. The second is protocol standardization. MCP handles vertical connectivity how agents access tools, data sources, and APIs through a typed manifest and standardized invocation pattern. A2A handles horizontal connectivity how agents discover peer agents, delegate subtasks, and coordinate workflows. Production systems today use both. The practical consequence is that multi-agent architectures can be composed and governed as a platform rather than managed as a collection of one-off integrations. The third is governance as the differentiating factor between teams that ship and teams that stall. Databricks found that companies using AI governance tools get over 12 times more AI projects into production compared to those without. The teams running production agents are not running more sophisticated models. They built evaluation pipelines, audit trails, and human oversight gates before scaling not after the first incident. Tier 1 - Low-code agents: fast delivery with a defined ceiling The low-code tier is more capable than it was eighteen months ago. Copilot Studio, Salesforce Agentforce, and equivalent platforms now support richer connector libraries, better generative orchestration, and more flexible topic models. The ceiling is higher than it was. It is still a ceiling. The core pattern remains: a visual topic model drives a platform-managed LLM that classifies intent and routes to named execution branches. Connectors abstract credential management and API surface. A business team — analyst, citizen developer, IT operations — can build, deploy, and iterate without engineering involvement on every change. For bounded conversational problems, this is the fastest path from requirement to production. The production reality is documented clearly. Gartner data found that only 5% of Copilot Studio pilots moved to larger-scale deployment. A European telecom with dedicated IT resources and a full Microsoft enterprise agreement spent six months and did not deliver a single production agent. The visual builder works. The path from prototype to production, production-grade integrations, error handling, compliance logging, exception routing is where most enterprises get stuck, because it requires Power Platform expertise that most business teams do not have. The platform ceiling shows up predictably at four points. Async processing anything beyond a synchronous connector call, including approval chains, document pipelines, or batch operations cannot be handled natively. Full payload audit logs platform logs give conversation transcripts and connector summaries, not structured records of every API call and its parameters. Production volume concurrency limits and message throughput budgets bind faster than planning assumptions suggest. Root cause analysis in production you cannot inspect the LLM's confidence score or the alternatives it considered, which makes diagnosing misbehavior significantly harder than it should be. The correct diagnostic: can this use case be owned end-to-end by a business team, covered by standard connectors, with no latency SLA below three seconds and no payload-level compliance requirement? Yes, low code is the correct tier. Not a compromise. If no on any point, continue. If low-code is the right call for your use case: Copilot Studio quickstart Tier 2 - Pro-code agents: the architecture the current landscape demands The defining pattern in production pro-code architecture today is multi-agent. Specialized agents per domain, coordinating through MCP for tool access and A2A for peer-to-peer delegation, with a governance layer spanning the entire system. What this looks like in practice: a financial organization handling incoming compliance queries runs separate agents for intent classification, document retrieval, and the compliance check itself. None of these agents tries to do all three jobs. Each has a narrow responsibility, a defined input/output contract typed against a JSON Schema, and a clear handoff boundary. The 327% growth in multi-agent workflows reflects production teams discovering that the failure modes of monolithic agents topic collision, context overflow, degraded classification as scope expands are solved by specialization, not by making a single agent more capable. The discipline that makes multi-agent systems reliable is identical to what makes single-agent systems reliable, just enforced across more boundaries: the LLM layer reasons and coordinates; deterministic tool functions enforce. In a compliance pipeline, no LLM decides whether a document satisfies a regulatory requirement. That evaluation runs in a deterministic tool with a versioned rule set, testable outputs, and an immutable audit log. The LLM orchestrates the sequence. The tool produces the compliance record. Mixing these letting an LLM evaluate whether a rule pass collapses the audit trail and introduces probabilistic outputs on questions that have regulatory answers. MCP is the tool interface standard today. An MCP server exposes a typed manifest any compliant agent runtime can discover at startup. Tools are versioned, independently deployable, and reusable across agents without bespoke integration code. A2A extends this horizontally: agents advertise capability cards, discover peers, and delegate subtasks through a standardised protocol. The practical consequence is that multi-agent systems built on both protocols can be composed and governed as a platform rather than managed as a collection of one-off integrations. Observability is the architectural element that separates teams shipping production agents from teams perpetually in pilot. Build evaluation pipelines, distributed traces across all agent boundaries, and human review gates before scaling. The teams that add these after the first production incident spend months retrofitting what should have been designed in. If pro-code is the right call for your use case: Foundry Agent Service The hybrid pattern: still where production deployments land The shift to multi-agent architecture does not change the hybrid pattern it deepens it. Low-code at the conversational surface, pro-code multi-agent systems behind it, with a governance layer spanning both. On a logistics client engagement, the brief was a sales assistant for account managers shipment status, account health, and competitive context inside Teams. The business team wanted everything in Copilot Studio. Engineering wanted a custom agent runtime. Both were wrong. What we built: Copilot Studio handled all high-frequency, low-complexity queries shipment tracking, account status, open cases through Power Platform connectors. Zero custom code. That covered roughly 78% of actual interaction volume. Requests requiring multi-source reasoning competitive positioning on a specific lane, churn risk across an account portfolio, contract renewal analysis delegated via authenticated HTTP action to a pro-code multi-agent service on Azure. A retrieval agent pulled deal history and market intelligence through MCP-exposed tools. A synthesis agent composed the recommendation with confidence scoring. Structured JSON back to the low-code layer, rendered as an adaptive card in Teams. The HITL gate was non-negotiable and designed before deployment, not added after the first incident. No output reached a customer without a manager approval step. The agent drafts. A human sends. This boundary low-code for conversational volume, pro-code for reasoning depth maps directly to what the research shows separates teams that ship from teams that stall. The organizations running agents in production drew the line correctly between what the platform can own and what engineering needs to own. Then they built governance into both sides before scaling. The four gates - the prior question that still gets skipped Run every candidate use case through these four checks before the platform conversation begins. None of the recent infrastructure improvements change what they are checking, because none of them change the fundamental cost structure of agentic reasoning. Gate 1 - is the logic fully deterministic? If every valid output for every valid input can be enumerated in unit tests, the problem does not need an LLM. A rules engine executes in microseconds at zero inference cost and cannot produce a plausible-but-wrong answer. NeuBird AI's production ops agents which have resolved over a million alerts and saved enterprises over $2 million in engineering hours work because alert triage logic that can be expressed as rules runs in deterministic code, and the LLM only handles cases where pattern-matching is insufficient. That boundary is not incidental to the system's reliability. It is the reason for it. Gate 2 - is zero hallucination tolerance required? With over 80% of databases now being built by AI agents per Databricks' State of AI Agents report the surface area for hallucination-induced data errors has grown significantly. In domains where a wrong answer is a compliance event financial calculation, medical logic, regulatory determinations irreducible LLM output uncertainty is disqualifying regardless of model version or prompt engineering effort. Exit to deterministic code or classical ML with bounded output spaces. Gate 3 - is a sub-100ms latency SLA required? LLM inference is faster than it was eighteen months ago. It is not fast enough for payment transaction processing, real-time fraud scoring, or live inventory management. A three-agent system with MCP tool calls has a P50 latency measured in seconds. These problems need purpose-built transactional architecture. Gate 4 - is regulatory explainability required? A2A enables complex agent coordination and delegation. It does not make LLM reasoning reproducible in a regulatory sense. Temperature above zero means the same input produces different outputs across invocations. Regulators in financial services, healthcare, and consumer credit require deterministic, auditable decision rationale. Exit to deterministic workflow with structured audit logging at every Five production failure modes - one of them new The four original anti-patterns are still showing up in production. A fifth has been added by scale. Routing data retrieval through a reasoning loop. A direct API call returns account status in under 10ms. Routing the same request through an LLM reasoning step adds hundreds of milliseconds, consumes tokens on every call, and introduces output parsing on data that is already structured. The agent calls a structured tool. The tool calls the API. The agent never acts as the integration layer. Encoding business rules in prompts. Rules expressed in prompt text drift as models update. They produce probabilistic output across invocations and fail in ways that are difficult to reproduce and diagnose. A rule that must evaluate correctly every time belongs in a deterministic tool function unit-tested, version-controlled, independently deployable via MCP. No approval gate on CRUD operations. CRUD operations without a human approval step will eventually misfire on the input that testing did not cover. The gate needs to be designed before deployment, not added after the first incident involving a financial posting, a customer-facing communication, or a data deletion. Monolithic agent for all domains. A single agent accumulating every domain leads predictably to topic collision, context overflow, and maintenance that becomes impossible as scope expands. Specialized agents per domain, coordinating through A2A, is the architecture that scales. Ungoverned agent sprawl. This is the new one and currently the most prevalent. OutSystems found 94% of organizations concerned about it, with only 12% having a centralized response. Teams building agents independently across fragmented stacks, without shared governance, evaluation standards, or audit infrastructure, produce exactly the same organizational debt that shadow IT created but with higher stakes, because these systems make autonomous decisions rather than just storing and retrieving data. The fix is treating governance as an architectural input before deployment, not a compliance requirement after something breaks. The infrastructure is ready. The judgment is not. The tier decision sequence has not changed. Does the problem need natural language understanding or dynamic generation? No — deterministic system, stop. Can a business team own it through standard connectors with no sub-3-second latency SLA and no payload-level compliance requirement? Yes — low-code. Does it need custom orchestration, multi-agent coordination, or audit-grade observability? Yes — pro-code with MCP and A2A. Does it need both a conversational surface and deep backend reasoning? Hybrid, with a governance layer spanning both. What has changed is that governance is no longer optional infrastructure to add when you have time. The data is unambiguous. Companies with governance tools get over 12 times more AI projects into production than those without. Evaluation pipelines, distributed tracing across agent boundaries, human oversight gates, and centralised agent lifecycle management are not overhead. They are what converts experiments into production systems. The teams still stuck in pilot are not stuck because the technology failed them. They are stuck because they skipped this layer. The protocols are standardised. The frameworks are mature. The infrastructure exists. None of that is what is holding most enterprise agent programmes back. What is holding them back is a selection problem disguised as a technology problem — teams building agents before asking whether agents are warranted, choosing platforms before running the four gates, and treating governance as a checkpoint rather than an architectural input. I have built agents that should have been workflow engines. Not because the technology was wrong, but because nobody stopped early enough to ask whether it was necessary. The four gates in this article exist because I learned those lessons at clients' expense, not mine. The most useful thing I can offer any team starting an agentic AI project is not a framework selection guide. It is permission to say no — and a clear basis for saying it. Take the four gates framework to your next architecture review. If you have already shipped agents to production, I would like to hear what worked and what did not - comment below What to do next Three concrete steps depending on where you are right now. If you have pilots that have not reached production: Run them through the four gates in this article before the next sprint. Gate 1 alone will eliminate a meaningful percentage of them. The ones that survive all four are your real candidates for production investment. Download the attached file for gated checklist and take it into your next architecture review. If you are starting a new agent project: Do not open a platform before you have answered the gate questions. Once you have confirmed an agent is warranted and identified the tier, start here: Copilot Studio guided setup for low-code scenarios, or Foundry Agent Service for pro-code patterns with MCP and multi-agent coordination built in. Build governance infrastructure - evaluation pipeline, distributed tracing, HITL gates - before you scale, not after. If you have already shipped agents to production: Share what worked and what did not in the Azure AI Tech Community — tag posts with #AgentArchitecture. The most useful signal for teams still in pilot is hearing from practitioners who have been through production, not vendors describing what production should look like. References OutSystems — State of AI Development Report - https://www.outsystems.com/1/state-ai-development-report Databricks — State of AI Agents Report - https://www.databricks.com/resources/ebook/state-of-ai-agents Gartner — 2025 Microsoft 365 and Copilot Survey - https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6548002 (Paywalled primary source — publicly reported via techpartner.news: https://www.techpartner.news/news/gartner-microsoft-copilot-hype-offset-by-roi-and-readiness-realities-618118) Anthropic — Model Context Protocol (MCP) - https://modelcontextprotocol.io Google Cloud — Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A) . https://developers.googleblog.com/en/a2a-a-new-era-of-agent-interoperability NeuBird AI — Production Operations Deployment Announcement NeuBird AI Closes $19.3M Funding Round to Scale Agentic AI Across Enterprise Production Operations ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models — Yao et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629 Enterprise Integration Patterns — Gregor Hohpe & Bobby Woolf, Addison-Wesley https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com
Automate Prior Authorization with AI Agents - Now Available as a Foundry Template
By Amit Mukherjee · Principal Solutions Engineer, Microsoft Health & Life Sciences Lindsey Craft-Goins · Technology Leader - Cloud & AI Platforms, Health & Life Sciences Joel Borellis · Director Solutions Engineering - Cloud & AI Platforms, Health & Life Sciences Prior authorization (PA) is one of the most expensive bottlenecks in U.S. healthcare. Physicians complete an average of 39 PA requests per week, spending roughly 13 hours of physician-and-staff time on PA-related work (AMA 2024 Prior Authorization Physician Survey). Turnaround averages 5–14 business days, and PA alone accounts for an estimated $35 billion in annual administrative spending (Sahni et al., Health Affairs Scholar, 2024). The regulatory clock is now ticking. CMS-0057-F mandates electronic PA with 72-hour urgent response starting in 2026. Forty-nine states plus DC already have PA laws on the books, and at least half of all U.S. state legislatures introduced new PA reform bills this year, including laws specifically targeting AI use in PA decisions (KFF Health News, April 2026). Today we’re making the Prior Authorization Multi-Agent Solution Accelerator available as a Microsoft Foundry template. Health plan payers can deploy a working, four-agent PA review pipeline to Azure using the Azure Developer CLI (“azd”) with a single command in supported environments, then customize it to their policies, workflows, and EHR environment. Try it now: Find the template in the Foundry template gallery, or clone directly from github.com/microsoft/Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator What the template delivers The accelerator deploys four specialist Foundry hosted agents (Compliance, Clinical Reviewer, Coverage, and Synthesis), each independently containerized and managed by Foundry. In internal testing with synthetic demo cases, the pipeline reduced review workflow, from beginning to completion in under 5 minutes per case. Agent Role Key capability Compliance Documentation check 10-item checklist with blocking/non-blocking flags Clinical Reviewer Clinical evidence ICD-10 validation, PubMed + ClinicalTrials.gov search Coverage Policy matching CMS NCD/LCD lookup, per-criterion MET/NOT_MET mapping Synthesis Decision rubric 3-gate APPROVE/PEND with weighted confidence scoring Compliance and Clinical run in parallel. Coverage runs after clinical findings are ready. Synthesis evaluates all three outputs through a three-gate rubric. The result is a structured recommendation with per-criterion confidence scores and a full audit trail, not a black-box answer. Solution architecture The accelerator runs entirely on Azure. The frontend and backend deploy as Azure Container Apps. The four specialist agents are hosted by Microsoft Foundry. Real-time healthcare data flows through third-party MCP servers. Figure 1: Azure solution architecture How the pipeline works The four agents execute in a structured parallel-then-sequential pipeline. Compliance and Clinical run simultaneously in Phase 1. Coverage runs after clinical findings are ready. The Synthesis agent applies a three-gate decision rubric over all prior outputs. Figure 2: Agentic architecture, hosted agent pipeline Compliance and Clinical run in parallel via asyncio.gather, since neither depends on the other. Coverage runs sequentially after Clinical because it needs the structured clinical profile for criterion mapping. Synthesis evaluates all three outputs through a three-gate rubric (Provider, Codes, Medical Necessity) with weighted confidence scoring: 40% coverage criteria + 30% clinical extraction + 20% compliance + 10% policy match. The total pipeline time is bound by the slowest parallel agent plus the sequential agents, not the sum. In internal testing with synthetic demo cases, this architecture indicated materially reduced processing time compared to sequential manual workflows. Under the hood For the architect in the room, here are four design decisions worth knowing about: Foundry hosted agents: Each agent is independently containerized, versioned, and managed by Foundry’s runtime. The FastAPI backend is a pure HTTP dispatcher. All reasoning happens inside the agent containers, and there are no code changes between local (Docker Compose) and production (Foundry); the environment variable is the only switch. Structured output: Every agent uses MAF’s response_format enforcement to produce typed Pydantic schemas at the token level. No JSON parsing, no malformed fences, no free-form text. The orchestrator receives typed Python objects; the frontend receives a stable API contract. Keyless security: DefaultAzureCredential throughout, so no API keys are stored anywhere. Managed Identity handles production; azd tokens handle local development. Role assignments are provisioned automatically by Bicep at deploy time. Observability: All agents emit OpenTelemetry traces to Azure Application Insights. The Foundry portal shows per-agent spans correlated by case ID. End-to-end latency, per-agent contribution, and error rates are visible from day one with no additional configuration. For the full architecture documentation, agent specifications, Pydantic schemas, and extension guides, see the GitHub repository. Why this matters now Human-in-the-loop by design The system runs in LENIENT mode by default: it produces only APPROVE or PEND and is not designed to produce automated DENY outcomes in its default configuration. Every recommendation requires a clinician to Accept or Override with documented rationale before the decision is finalized. Override records flow to the audit PDF, notification letters, and downstream systems. This directly addresses the emerging wave of state legislation governing AI use in PA decisions. Domain experts own the rules Agent behavior is defined in markdown skill files, not Python code. When CMS updates a coverage determination or a plan changes its commercial policy, a clinician or compliance officer edits a text file and redeploys. No engineering PR required. Real-time healthcare data via MCP Agents connect to five MCP servers for real-time data: ICD-10 codes, NPI Registry, CMS Coverage policies, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. This incorporates real‑time clinical reference data sources to inform agent recommendations. Third-party MCP servers are included for demonstration with synthetic data only. Their inclusion does not constitute an endorsement by Microsoft. See the GitHub repository for production migration guidance. Audit-ready from day one Every case generates an 8-section audit justification PDF with per-criterion evidence, data source attribution, timestamps, and confidence breakdowns. Clinician overrides are recorded in Section 9. Notification letters (approval and pend) are generated automatically. These artifacts are designed to support CMS-0057-F documentation requirements. Deploy in under 15 minutes From the Foundry template gallery or from the command line: git clone https://github.com/microsoft/Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator cd Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator azd up That single command provisions Foundry, Azure Container Registry, Container Apps, builds all Docker images, registers the four agents, and runs health checks. The demo is live with a synthetic sample case as soon as deployment completes. What’s included What you customize 4 Foundry hosted agents Payer-specific coverage policies FastAPI orchestrator + Next.js frontend EHR/FHIR integration for clinical notes 5 MCP healthcare data connections Self-hosted MCP servers for production PHI Audit PDF + notification letter generation Authentication (Microsoft Entra ID) Full Bicep infrastructure-as-code Persistent storage (Cosmos DB / PostgreSQL) OpenTelemetry + App Insights observability Additional agents (Pharmacy, Financial) Built on Microsoft Foundry + Foundry hosted agents · Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) · Azure OpenAI gpt-5.4 · Azure Container Apps · Azure Developer CLI + Bicep · OpenTelemetry + Azure Application Insights · DefaultAzureCredential (keyless, no secrets) Full architecture documentation, agent specifications, and extension guides are in the GitHub repository. Get started Foundry template gallery: Search “AI-Powered Prior Authorization for Healthcare” in the Foundry template section GitHub: github.com/microsoft/Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator Disclaimers Not a medical device. This solution accelerator is not a medical device, is not FDA-cleared, and is not intended for autonomous clinical decision-making. All AI recommendations require qualified clinical review before any authorization decision is finalized. Not production-ready software. This is an open-source reference architecture (MIT License), not a supported Microsoft product. Customers are solely responsible for testing, validation, regulatory compliance, security hardening, and production deployment. Performance figures are illustrative. Metrics cited (including processing time reductions) are based on internal testing with synthetic demo data. Actual results will vary based on case complexity, infrastructure, and configuration. Third-party services included for demonstration only; not endorsed by Microsoft. Customers should evaluate providers against their compliance and data residency requirements. The demo uses synthetic data only. Customers deploying real patient data are responsible for HIPAA compliance and establishing appropriate Business Associate Agreements. This accelerator is intended to help customers align documentation workflows with CMS‑0057‑F requirements but has not been independently validated or certified for regulatory compliance.
Troubleshooting Microsoft Foundry Accessing On‑Premises APIs Over Private Networking
Audience: Azure solution architects, network engineers, and AI practitioners deploying Microsoft Foundry in enterprise, network‑isolated environments. Scenario: Foundry Agent Service must call an on‑premises (or privately hosted) API over VPN or ExpressRoute using on‑premises corporate DNS. Connectivity works from a virtual machine (VM) in the virtual network (VNet), but fails when the same call is made from a Foundry agent. This post consolidates common field patterns observed across customer engagements and maps them directly to official Microsoft guidance. It highlights a frequently missed prerequisite for private connectivity: Project and Agent Capability Hosts. The Repeating Enterprise Pattern The architecture is familiar: Microsoft Foundry account and project Customer‑managed VNet with VPN or ExpressRoute to on‑premises Corporate (on‑premises) DNS used for API name resolution A VM in the VNet can successfully resolve and call the on‑prem API Foundry agents are configured to call the same API (often via an OpenAPI tool) Despite this, the agent fails with one or more of the following: DNS resolution failures Connection timeouts HTTP 401 or 403 responses Unexpected backend or proxy URLs appearing in logs The consistent question is: Why does this work from a VM in the VNet but not from the Foundry agents? Key Principle: Foundry Agents Do Not Automatically Run in Your VNet This is the most important mental model to reset. Creating a private endpoint for a Foundry Agent Service does not place agent runtime traffic into your VNet. Private endpoints are inbound constructs. Outbound connectivity from an agent only flows through your VNet when specific requirements are met. The most critical of those requirements is a Capability Host. What Is a Capability Host? A Capability Host defines where Foundry capabilities are allowed to execute. In private networking scenarios, the capability host: Binds a Foundry project or agent to a customer‑managed subnet Enables platform‑managed container injection into that subnet Ensures outbound traffic follows VNet routing, security controls, and DNS configuration Capability Host Scope Project Capability Host Associated at the project level Applies to all agents in the project Defines the customer subnet the project is allowed to use Agent Capability Host Associated at the individual agent level Can explicitly bind or override subnet placement Useful when agents require different isolation boundaries Key field insight: If no capability host is associated, the agent runtime is not injected into the VNet—even if VPN, ExpressRoute, private endpoints, and on‑prem DNS are correctly configured. Capability Host Lifecycle (Conceptual) 1 Microsoft Foundry Account ↓ Project ↓ Capability Host ↓ Delegated Agent Subnet (VNet) ↓ Agent Runtime (Container Injection) Without the capability host step, the chain breaks and the agent executes outside the customer network boundary. Why On‑Premises DNS Appears Correct—but Still Fails DNS is where most investigations stall. Teams typically confirm: On‑premises DNS resolves the API hostname VNet DNS settings forward queries to on‑prem DNS A VM in the subnet resolves and reaches the API Yet the agent still fails. The reason is simple: The VM is unquestionably inside the VNet The agent may not be Without a capability host, the agent runtime does not inherit: VNet DNS server settings Corporate DNS forwarding rules On‑premises name resolution paths As a result, DNS fails even though the DNS design itself is correct. Secondary Symptom: HTTP 401 Errors After subnet injection and DNS are corrected, some customers encounter HTTP 401 responses. This typically means: The API is now reachable The request is successfully routed through the private path Authentication or authorization is failing At this stage, troubleshooting moves from networking to identity: Validate the credential or token configured in the Foundry connection Confirm expected headers, audience, or auth flow Account for managed proxy hops in the request path A 401 at this point is progress—it confirms private connectivity is working. Permissions and Required Services for Capability Hosts Creating capability hosts requires both the correct Azure role-based access control (RBAC) permissions and the presence of specific dependent services. These prerequisites are frequently overlooked and can silently block capability host creation or leave hosts in a failed provisioning state. Required Permissions (RBAC) Microsoft documentation explicitly calls out the following minimum permissions: Contributor role on the Microsoft Foundry account to create capability hosts. User Access Administrator or Owner role on the subscription or resource group to grant the Foundry project’s managed identity access to dependent Azure resources when using standard agent setup. Without these roles, capability host creation may fail, or the host may be created without access to required downstream services. For details, see Role-based access control (RBAC) for Microsoft Foundry. Required Azure Services and Connections For standard and network-secured agent setups, capability hosts reference customer-owned Azure resources. The following services must exist and be connected to the Foundry project before creating the capability host: Azure Storage – for file uploads and artifacts Azure AI Search – for vector stores and retrieval Azure Cosmos DB – for thread and conversation storage Azure AI Services / Azure OpenAI – for model execution These services must be deployed in supported regions and, for private networking scenarios, in the same region as the virtual network. Capability hosts reference these resources through project connections, not raw resource IDs . Networking-Specific Requirements When using private networking: The agent subnet must already exist and be delegated appropriately. The capability host must reference the correct customer subnet at creation time. Required private endpoints and DNS resolution must be in place for dependent services. If networking or connections change, capability hosts cannot be updated in-place and must be deleted and recreated with the corrected configuration . Practical Fix Patterns 1. Create and Associate a Project Capability Host Bind the project to the intended delegated agent subnet Verify the customerSubnet reference Redeploy the agent after association This aligns directly with the Standard Setup with Private Networking model documented by Microsoft. 2. Validate Agent Placement and Network Inheritance Confirm the agent is associated with the expected capability host Verify the capability host references the correct subnet Ensure network and DNS settings are applied at the subnet level The agent inherits routing and DNS behavior only after successful subnet injection. 3. Validate DNS From the Agent Subnet Confirm VNet DNS settings point to on‑prem DNS Test name resolution from a VM in the same subnet Once injected, the agent uses the same DNS behavior as other resources in that subnet. 4. Use a Supported Foundry Experience Be aware of documented constraints: End‑to‑end network isolation is not supported in the newer Foundry portal experience Network‑isolated agent scenarios require the classic Foundry experience, SDK, or CLI Hosted agents do not support full isolation Mismatch here can make a correct network design appear broken. A Simple Checklist When a Foundry agent cannot reach an on‑prem API: Is a **Project Capability **Host associated? Is the capability host bound to the correct subnet? Is on‑prem DNS reachable from that subnet? Is a supported Foundry experience in use? If reachable, is authentication configured correctly? If items 1 and 2 are not satisfied, all other troubleshooting is premature. Closing Most private networking issues with Microsoft Foundry are not caused by VPNs or DNS infrastructure. They result from an incomplete understanding of **where the agent ****runtime ****actually **executes. Capability Hosts are the control point. When they are correctly configured, Foundry agents behave exactly as described in Microsoft guidance: they inherit VNet routing, DNS, and security controls and can securely access on‑premises systems over private connectivity. No capability host = no VNet injection = no on‑prem connectivity. References The following Microsoft‑published resources were referenced and aligned with throughout this article: Network‑secured agent setup (GitHub) – Reference implementation demonstrating a network‑secured Foundry Agent Service deployment with a customer‑managed virtual network, delegated agent subnet, and private connectivity patterns. This notebook illustrates how agent runtimes inherit network behavior only after subnet injection ralacher/network-secured-agent Set up private networking for Foundry Agent Service - Microsoft Foundry | Microsoft Learns .
Vector Drift in Azure AI Search: Three Hidden Reasons Your RAG Accuracy Degrades After Deployment
What Is Vector Drift? Vector drift occurs when embeddings stored in a vector index no longer accurately represent the semantic intent of incoming queries. Because vector similarity search depends on relative semantic positioning, even small changes in models, data distribution, or preprocessing logic can significantly affect retrieval quality over time. Unlike schema drift or data corruption, vector drift is subtle: The system continues to function Queries return results But relevance steadily declines Cause 1: Embedding Model Version Mismatch What Happens Documents are indexed using one embedding model, while query embeddings are generated using another. This typically happens due to: Model upgrades Shared Azure OpenAI resources across teams Inconsistent configuration between environments Why This Matters Embeddings generated by different models: Exist in different vector spaces Are not mathematically comparable Produce misleading similarity scores As a result, documents that were previously relevant may no longer rank correctly. Recommended Practice A single vector index should be bound to one embedding model and one dimension size for its entire lifecycle. If the embedding model changes, the index must be fully re-embedded and rebuilt. Cause 2: Incremental Content Updates Without Re-Embedding What Happens New documents are continuously added to the index, while existing embeddings remain unchanged. Over time, new content introduces: Updated terminology Policy changes New product or domain concepts Because semantic meaning is relative, the vector space shifts—but older vectors do not. Observable Impact Recently indexed documents dominate retrieval results Older but still valid content becomes harder to retrieve Recall degrades without obvious system errors Practical Guidance Treat embeddings as living assets, not static artifacts: Schedule periodic re-embedding for stable corpora Re-embed high-impact or frequently accessed documents Trigger re-embedding when domain vocabulary changes meaningfully Declining similarity scores or reduced citation coverage are often early signals of drift. Cause 3: Inconsistent Chunking Strategies What Happens Chunk size, overlap, or parsing logic is adjusted over time, but previously indexed content is not updated. The index ends up containing chunks created using different strategies. Why This Causes Drift Different chunking strategies produce: Different semantic density Different contextual boundaries Different retrieval behavior This inconsistency reduces ranking stability and makes retrieval outcomes unpredictable. Governance Recommendation Chunking strategy should be treated as part of the index contract: Use one chunking strategy per index Store chunk metadata (for example, chunk_version) Rebuild the index when chunking logic changes Design Principles Versioned embedding deployments Scheduled or event-driven re-embedding pipelines Standardized chunking strategy Retrieval quality observability Prompt and response evaluation Key Takeaways Vector drift is an architectural concern, not a service defect It emerges from model changes, evolving data, and preprocessing inconsistencies Long-lived RAG systems require embedding lifecycle management Azure AI Search provides the controls needed to mitigate drift effectively Conclusion Vector drift is an expected characteristic of production RAG systems. Teams that proactively manage embedding models, chunking strategies, and retrieval observability can maintain reliable relevance as their data and usage evolve. Recognizing and addressing vector drift is essential to building and operating robust AI solutions on Azure. Further Reading The following Microsoft resources provide additional guidance on vector search, embeddings, and production-grade RAG architectures on Azure. Azure AI Search – Vector Search Overview - https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/search/vector-search-overview Azure OpenAI – Embeddings Concepts - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-foundry/openai/how-to/embeddings?view=foundry-classic&tabs=csharp Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Pattern on Azure - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/search/retrieval-augmented-generation-overview?tabs=videos Azure Monitor – Observability Overview - https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/azure-monitor/overview
