New Agent Experience - Adding Excel Tool
Hello everyone, I want an agent in the new Copilot Studio experience to read the latest row from an Excel table and then append a new row. Has anyone successfully configured the Excel Online (Business) tools dynamically in the new Copilot Studio experience? Which values should be passed for Location, Document Library/Drive, and File, etc.? In preview, the agent fails but when I prompt it, it ends up adding the row. If anyone could also guide me to resources to learn about how to configure tools in the new experience, I would even be more grateful. Thank you !Token Limit Exceeded? What's Actually Going On and What to Do About It ?
Hi All, Please check out my latest blog on “Token Limit Exceeded” would love to hear your thoughts https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/1c769f9e-c0b0-45a7-af52-fecceca10bb2/token-limit-exceeded-whats-actually-going-on-and-what-to-do-about-it-/4536271
You don't have access to talk to this bot, contact the owner. copilot studio
I created a copilot studio agent and then embedded it inside a code app. It works fine but i am facing the below error. You don't have access to talk to this bot, contact the owner. copilot studio I have provided Microsoft based authentication and am an owner so will have access to the bot. Yet facing the above issue. Is there something i am missing
New workflow designer accessing environment variables
Hi, I really enjoy using the new workflow designer. I've a triggered workflow (Email arrives) that I added into a solution. I'd like to use environment variables from within the workflow. The variables and the workflow are in the same solution. Unfortunatly the environment variables are not visible like they were in the old designer. How can I access them ? Thanks in advance
Copilot Studio Agent resetting when processing PDF drawings (300MB+) via Claude 4.6 Sonnet
Hello everyone, I am building an automated drawing review verification agent inside Copilot Studio using the Claude 4.6 Sonnet model. The goal of the agent is to read a comments package (20-40MB) and verify if those design comments were successfully incorporated into a milestone drawing set (300MB–400MB). When testing this workflow natively within Claude, the model handles the token load perfectly and returns an accurate compliance/incorporation summary within approximately 20 minutes. However, when running the exact same agent setup within Copilot Studio, the conversational canvas repeatedly crashes and resets the session. I suspect I am hitting the 100-second synchronous conversational timeout or overloading the chat runtime payload limits due to the massive file sizes. Because of corporate compliance policies, this agent must live within our Microsoft tenant so it can be scaled across our operations team via Microsoft 365. How can I fix Copilot Studio to have its performance match Claude's, as it is utilizing the same agent model. I am fairly new to working with AI but am willing explore any avenue as if I can figure out a solution this will help save a lot of time for colleagues. Thanks in advance for any insights!Build a Local Microsoft Sentinel Triage Agent in VS Code (Copilot + MCP)
Modern SOC work is not limited by data—it’s limited by the friction of collecting it. This post shows a local-first workflow that lets you investigate Microsoft Sentinel incidents from inside VS Code using GitHub Copilot Chat for reasoning and a small, deterministic MCP toolset for evidence retrieval and (optionally) approval-gated writeback. What you’ll take away: How to structure a Copilot + MCP triage loop that stays grounded in Azure evidence A reliability pattern: fall back to KQL when Sentinel subresource APIs are flaky A safety pattern: draft-first, explicit-approval writeback for incident comments Why This Exists Sentinel triage is powerful but fragmented: you jump between the portal, KQL, entity pivots, and case notes just to answer “what happened?” The goal here is to collapse that into a single, repeatable loop inside the editor. Resolve the incident and pull the underlying alerts/entities Pivot into AzureActivity (and other logs) to identify the actor and outcome Use threat intelligence (TI) for context—not as the decision Generate an evidence-backed narrative and draft comment; write back only on explicit approval Design Principles Evidence first: every claim must be traceable to Sentinel APIs or Log Analytics results Small tool surface: fewer tools, clearer prompting, easier hardening Reliability by design: if one API path fails, pivot to KQL and continue Safety boundary: investigation and writeback are separate, and writeback is approval-gated Architecture & Data Flow A local TypeScript MCP server exposes a handful of triage tools to Copilot Chat in VS Code. Reads come from Sentinel + Log Analytics; writes (incident comments) are optional and require explicit approval. Copilot Chat (VS Code) decides the next step and summarizes outputs MCP server executes allowed tools: incident lookup, alert/entity retrieval, KQL queries, optional comment writeback Evidence sources: Sentinel Incident APIs + Log Analytics tables (SecurityIncident, SecurityAlert, AzureActivity, TI tables) Safety gate: writeback happens only after explicit approval; otherwise you get a draft Tool Surface MCP is useful here because it separates reasoning from execution: Copilot can decide what to do, but only the MCP server can do it—and only through tools you explicitly define and can audit. list_incidents / get_incident (ground the case) get_incident_alerts / get_incident_entities (fast path) run_incident_kql (reliable fallback + pivots) add_incident_comment (draft-first; writes only with approval) The Investigation Loop (3 Steps) Prompt used sentinel-triage-local Investigate Sentinel incident 1478 end to end in workspace Subscription ID/Resource Group/Workspace Name. Resolve the incident ID first, collect underlying alerts and entities, enrich with AzureActivity and TI, determine whether the activity is malicious or benign, and return: 1. Investigation summary 2. Key evidence 3. Entity analysis 4. TI enrichment result 5. Risk assessment 6. Recommended disposition 7. Final incident comment draft Rules: - Use tool output only, no guessing. - If alert/entity subresource APIs fail, pivot to KQL and continue. - Do not submit the comment unless I explicitly say: APPROVE COMMENT. 1) Ground the incident Resolve the human-friendly incident number to the Sentinel incident resource ID, then capture the metadata you need to drive every later pivot. Incident numbers are convenient for analysts, but the actual investigation flow depends on the underlying incident resource ID. Resolving that first gives the workflow a concrete anchor for: Title Severity Owner Status Alert count Analytic rule IDs Incident URL This gives you the stable identifiers (and the URL) needed to retrieve alerts, entities, and supporting logs. 2) Collect alerts and entities (fast path) Pull the alerts behind the incident and the entities they reference. When the incident subresource APIs behave, this is the fastest way to assemble the working set. In the ideal path, the agent can call the incident alert and entity subresources directly. That gives fast access to: Alert IDs Alert names Timestamps Severities Entities Provider metadata 3) Stay reliable: pivot to KQL when APIs fail In real environments, the incident subresource APIs for alerts/entities are not always dependable. When they fail, the workflow switches to Log Analytics and reconstructs the same evidence via KQL—so the investigation continues. SecurityIncident to recover the incident record and alert IDs SecurityAlert to retrieve alert details and entities AzureActivity to determine who or what performed the operation ThreatIntelligenceIndicator and ThreatIntelIndicators for enrichment The High-Signal Pivot: AzureActivity In the incidents I tested, AzureActivity was the fastest way to classify “suspicious deployment” alerts: it tells you who did the action, what operation ran, and whether it succeeded. The evidence showed: The caller was a single Microsoft Entra ID object ID Claims_d.idtyp = "app" Authorization_d.evidence.principalType = "ServicePrincipal" The activity was tied to a policy assignment The operation was MICROSOFT.RESOURCES/DEPLOYMENTS/WRITE The result was BadRequest with InvalidTemplate That pattern typically points to automation (service principal + policy-driven deployment) failing due to a bad template—not an interactive attacker. Threat Intelligence: Use It as Context Enrich observables against TI, but treat it as corroboration: a hit is not proof, and a miss is not a clean bill of health. In my test runs, TI mainly helped refine confidence after AzureActivity and alert evidence established the likely story. Output: An Evidence-Backed Narrative (and a Draft Comment) Once the tools return results, Copilot’s job is synthesis: turn structured evidence into a short narrative an analyst can paste into the case. What happened, who/what triggered it, and whether it succeeded Key supporting evidence (alerts, entities, AzureActivity pivots, TI context) A recommended disposition and a draft incident comment Incident comment written back automatically (after approval) (screenshot): Safety + Reliability: Approval-Gated Writeback The agent can draft a comment automatically, but it cannot change incident state unless the analyst explicitly approves. That boundary is what makes the workflow usable in real operations. After approval, the tool submits the drafted comment directly to the Sentinel incident so the portal reflects the same evidence-backed narrative. Default: return the draft comment only On approval: acquire an ARM token via Azure CLI and submit via curl.exe (hardened with validation + retries) Why This Is Worth Building Less context switching: investigation happens where you already work More consistency: the same loop runs every time, with deterministic tools Better classification: AzureActivity pivots reduce false “user did X” assumptions Safer automation: drafts are automatic; writes are explicit and auditable Conclusion AI is most useful in a SOC when it is constrained: deterministic tools fetch the evidence, the model synthesizes it, and humans keep control of state changes. A local Copilot + MCP workflow hits that sweet spot—faster triage for the SOC analysts.
