From AI Adoption to AI Governance - Using APIM as the Gateway for Azure AI Foundry
Co-authored by Gaurav Jain (Senior Cloud Solution Architect @ Microsoft) and Abhishek Mittal (Cloud Solution Architect @ Microsoft) Enterprises move through three phases of AI adoption: evaluating models, building apps and agents, and operationalizing them in production. The first two are easier to accelerate. The third is where governance becomes critical. Once multiple teams share an AI endpoint, leaders need clear answers to practical questions: which model consumed tokens, which team used them, and who is authorized to call it? This post shows how to place Azure API Management (APIM) in front of Azure AI Foundry as an AI Gateway, turning a shared endpoint into a governed control point for per-model token visibility, chargeback, and budget alerts — with no changes to client code. It also shows where Azure Front Door and Web Application Firewall (WAF) fit in a secure AI Landing Zone. The problem: AI adoption is outpacing AI governance A common starting point is an Azure OpenAI resource running multiple models. The team already has operational telemetry, but governance needs a different view: per-model token usage for chargeback, budget alerts, and capacity planning, captured in one place. Azure gives you rich resource-level telemetry out of the box, and that is exactly where we started: Azure Monitor — Metrics blade: shows token usage split by model and deployment in near real time. Diagnostic settings: stream the resource's metrics and request logs into Log Analytics (the AzureMetrics and AzureDiagnostics tables). Azure Monitor provides useful resource-level telemetry, including metrics and diagnostic logs. A governance view needs something different: model identity and token counts correlated in a single record, so teams can build a per-model, month-to-date ledger for chargeback and alerting. The AzureMetrics table carries the token totals, aggregated at the resource level. The AzureDiagnostics logs carry the model and deployment name at the request level. Each stream does its job well. Correlating them into one per-model, month-to-date ledger — and alerting on it — is a governance concern that sits above any single resource. Azure Monitor metric alerts, for instance, work on a rolling 24-hour window that maps cleanly onto a per-day token budget; a month-to-date, per-model chargeback ledger is simply a different shape of question — and a natural fit for a dedicated control point. This transition is the focus of this post: moving from AI adoption to AI governance by introducing a control point where model identity and token usage are captured together by design. The natural home for that control point is an AI gateway — and we build it next with Azure API Management in front of Azure AI Foundry. The pattern: APIM as the AI Gateway for Azure AI Foundry The AI gateway in Azure API Management is a set of capabilities to secure, scale, monitor, and govern the AI models, agents, and tools behind your apps. It isn't a separate product — it extends the existing API Management gateway. As Microsoft's guidance puts it, as AI adoption matures the gateway helps you authenticate and authorize access to AI services, load balance across endpoints, monitor and log AI interactions, and manage token usage and quotas across multiple applications. APIM becomes the governed front door for Azure AI Foundry. Clients continue calling an OpenAI-compatible endpoint; APIM authenticates to Foundry with a system-assigned managed identity, forwards the request, and emits per-model token telemetry to Azure Monitor and Application Insights. The result is per-model visibility without client-side changes. Models behind the gateway The gateway can front any model deployment in Azure AI Foundry — Azure OpenAI models, other Foundry models, or a mix — and the pattern is identical no matter which you run. For a concrete reference, the walkthrough in this post sits in front of two existing deployments: Deployment Model Provisioned capacity (TPM) gpt-4.1 gpt-4.1 500K gpt-5 gpt-5 50K Example deployments referenced throughout this post. Note the deliberate capacity gap — gpt-5 at 50K TPM versus 500K for gpt-4.1 — exactly the kind of asymmetry that makes per-model visibility a governance requirement, not a nice-to-have. Architecture Figure 1 — Architecture / component flow: consumers call one governed API; the inbound policy authenticates with a managed identity, resolves the model, and emits per-model token metrics to Azure Monitor and Application Insights. The starting point (“before”): a pass-through without a usage signal By default, APIM operates as a straightforward proxy. If you import a Foundry API and keep the default configuration, the policy simply selects the backend service: <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-backend-service id="apim-generated-policy" backend-id="foundry-backend" /> </inbound> <backend><base /></backend> <outbound><base /></outbound> <on-error><base /></on-error> </policies> A plain pass-through API. It forwards traffic faithfully — it simply doesn't surface a usage signal yet. This is our “before.” Pass-through configuration works, but it does not distinguish traffic by model. All requests flow through the same stream, with no per-model chargeback signal, no capacity warning, and no clear view of which deployment is driving consumption. To govern the workload, the gateway must understand the traffic — not just relay it. The governed gateway (“after”): a policy that sees every token The custom inbound policy below is the heart of the pattern. It does four things in order: set-backend-service — select the Azure AI Foundry backend. authentication-managed-identity — obtain an Entra ID token for cognitiveservices.azure.com using the APIM system-assigned identity. No keys ever leave the gateway. set-variable deployment-id — resolve the model name from either the URL path or the request body (more on why below). azure-openai-emit-token-metric — emit prompt, completion, and total token counts to Azure Monitor, dimensioned by model. <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-backend-service backend-id="foundry-backend" /> <authentication-managed-identity resource="https://cognitiveservices.azure.com" /> <!-- Resolve the model/deployment name. The Foundry Model Inference API (/models/chat/completions, /models/embeddings, /anthropic/v1/messages) passes it in the JSON body as "model". The Azure OpenAI-style surface (/openai/deployments/{name}/...) passes it in the URL path. Handle both. --> <set-variable name="deployment-id" value="@{ var path = context.Request.Url.Path ?? ""; var m = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Match(path, "/deployments/([^/?]+)"); if (m.Success) { return m.Groups[1].Value; } try { var body = context.Request.Body?.As<JObject>(preserveContent: true); var model = body?["model"]; if (model != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.ToString())) { return model.ToString(); } } catch (Exception) { } return "unknown"; }" /> <!-- Emit token-usage metrics dimensioned by model, so consumption can be sliced per model in Azure Monitor / Application Insights. --> <azure-openai-emit-token-metric namespace="genai-tokens"> <dimension name="ModelDeploymentName" value="@((string)context.Variables["deployment-id"])" /> <dimension name="ModelName" value="@((string)context.Variables["deployment-id"])" /> <dimension name="APIId" value="@(context.Api.Id)" /> <dimension name="Subscription" value="@(context.Subscription?.Id ?? "none")" /> <dimension name="Client IP" value="@(context.Request.IpAddress)" /> <dimension name="Product ID" value="@(context.Product?.Id ?? "none")" /> </azure-openai-emit-token-metric> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> </on-error> </policies> The full custom policy, applied at API scope. The highlighted value is the model-name resolution feeding a per-model token metric. Request flow, end to end Figure 2 traces a single chat request from top to bottom — from the caller, through the gateway's inbound policy, out to Azure AI Foundry, and into your telemetry. Figure 2 — Per-request flow: authentication, model resolution, forwarding, and token-metric emission. The request flow is straightforward: the client calls the APIM endpoint, the gateway selects the Foundry backend, authenticates with managed identity, resolves the model name, forwards the request, emits token metrics, and returns the response unchanged. Governance is added at the gateway without requiring client-side changes. Why dual-shape model resolution matters The azure-openai-emit-token-metric policy can emit usage, but it still needs a model dimension. Different API surfaces place the model name in different locations: Foundry Model Inference and Anthropic-style requests use the body, while Azure OpenAI-compatible calls use the URL path. The policy handles both shapes, so one gateway can govern all callers consistently. Observability: per-model token visibility and chargeback Metrics land in Azure Monitor / Application Insights under the namespace genai-tokens. The policy records Total Tokens, Prompt Tokens, and Completion Tokens, each tagged with Model Name, Model Deployment Name, API Id, APIM Product Subscription, Client IP, and Product ID. The data can then be queried directly. Per-model consumption over time: customMetrics | where name == "Total Tokens" | where timestamp >= startofmonth(now()) | extend ModelName = tostring(customDimensions["ModelName"]) | summarize TotalTokens = sum(valueSum), Calls = sum(valueCount) by ModelName Per-model token consumption (Application Insights customMetrics). And a per-model, per- API product subscription view for chargeback: customMetrics | where name == "Total Tokens" | where timestamp >= startofmonth(now()) | extend Model = tostring(customDimensions["ModelName"]), Sub = tostring(customDimensions["Subscription"]) | summarize Tokens = sum(value) by Model, Sub, name | order by Tokens desc Chargeback: tokens by model and consuming subscription. The gateway records model identity and token usage together, so the chargeback view is built in. The same signal supports dashboards, daily budget alerts, capacity planning, and cost allocation by subscription or product — without changing client code. Turning the signal into a Cost Guardrail: a 24-hour token alert Because the token totals now carry the model name, you can put a hard guardrail on spend. Wrap a query in an Azure Monitor log search alert rule that sums Total Tokens over the last 24 hours per model and returns only the deployments that breach a daily budget: // Rolling 24-hour token-budget guardrail — returns any model over its daily cap let dailyTokenBudget = 50000; // max Total Tokens per model in a rolling 24h window customMetrics | where name == "Total Tokens" | where timestamp > ago(24h) extend Model = tostring(customDimensions["ModelName"]) | summarize TokensLast24h = sum(value) by Model | where TokensLast24h > dailyTokenBudget | extend OverBudgetBy = TokensLast24h - dailyTokenBudget | project Model, TokensLast24h, DailyBudget = dailyTokenBudget, OverBudgetBy A rolling 24-hour token-budget check. The alert rule fires whenever this query returns one or more rows. Configure this as a scheduled log search alert: evaluate on a short cadence (for example, hourly over the trailing 24-hour window), set the alert logic to fire when the result count is greater than zero, and attach an action group that notifies the team through an email distribution list or Microsoft Teams channel. When any model crosses its rolling 24-hour token budget, the owning team is alerted, so overspend is detected within the day rather than at invoice time. Tune dailyTokenBudget per model, or add a single all-up cap, and translate token budgets into estimated daily cost ceilings to maintain continuous spend visibility. Completing the picture: securing the AI Landing Zone with Front Door + WAF APIM governs model usage; Azure Front Door with WAF governs public access. Placing WAF at the edge protects the AI endpoint from common web attacks, malicious bots, abusive callers, and unwanted source IP ranges before traffic reaches APIM or Foundry. What Front Door + WAF adds OWASP protection: The Azure-managed Microsoft_DefaultRuleSet_2.1 helps defend against OWASP Top 10 web attacks and known CVEs; Microsoft_BotManagerRuleSet_1.0 helps block malicious bots. Run the policy in prevention mode so offending requests are rejected with a 403, not just logged. IP restriction and rate limiting: Custom WAF rules restrict access to known IP ranges and throttle abusive callers before they reach APIM or Foundry. Global edge: Front Door terminates TLS at the edge and provides a single, DDoS-protected public entry point for the workload. Defense in depth across the landing zone Layered against the Azure AI Foundry landing zone baseline, the request path looks like this: Defense in depth: WAF at the edge, governance at the gateway, isolation on the network, Foundry reachable over a private endpoint. The baseline Azure AI Foundry landing zone reinforces every layer: private endpoints keep PaaS services (Foundry, Key Vault, Storage, AI Search) off the public internet; a system-assigned managed identity helps remove API keys; a hub-and-spoke topology routes egress through Azure Firewall; Azure Key Vault holds the Front Door TLS certificate; and Azure Policy enforces guardrails across the subscription. The gateway pattern from Sections 2–6 slots directly into this architecture as the governed control point for model traffic. Outcomes and what to extend next With APIM and the security edge in place, the shared endpoint supports per-model chargeback, capacity planning, zero client changes, and a stronger security baseline. The same gateway pattern can then be extended with token quotas, semantic caching, content safety, resiliency, and a unified model API (preview). Closing thoughts Moving from AI adoption to AI governance does not require re-architecting every app; it requires a control point. APIM in front of Azure AI Foundry provides that point: one policy turns token usage into a per-model governance signal, and Front Door with WAF provides a hardened edge. Start with visibility, then add quotas, safety, and resiliency as adoption scales. References AI gateway capabilities in Azure API Management — Microsoft Learn Baseline Microsoft Foundry Chat Reference Architecture in an Azure Landing Zone - Azure Architecture Center Protect Azure OpenAI using Azure Web Application Firewall on Azure Front Door — Microsoft Learn LLM token limit policy — Microsoft Learn Emit token consumption metrics (llm-emit-token-metric) — Microsoft LearnBuilding AI Agents from Zero to Production
Building AI Agents from Zero to Production Most agent demos stop at "it answered my question." Production doesn't. The gap between a notebook that calls an LLM and a governed, observable, multi-agent system your organisation can actually depend on is where real engineering happens, evaluation, deployment, data sovereignty, tool governance, and cross-team interoperability. Microsoft's open-source course Building AI Agents from Zero to Production walks that entire arc in seven lessons, using one realistic use case and the Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) plus Microsoft Foundry. This post is a developer-focused tour of what it teaches, the architecture decisions behind each stage, and the code patterns that matter when you move from prototype to production. Who this is for AI engineers building their first or first production, agent system. Backend and full-stack developers integrating agents into real applications and CI/CD. Cloud architects who need data sovereignty, private networking, and governance around agent workloads. Technical leads deciding how to standardise tools and orchestration across multiple teams. The samples are Python 3.12+, served through Microsoft Foundry using GPT-5 series models (for example gpt-5.1 ). Lesson 4 adds a TypeScript/React frontend. You will want an Azure subscription and the Azure CLI. The AI Agent Development Lifecycle The course is organised around a lifecycle rather than a feature list. Each lesson is a stage, and each stage assumes the previous one is solved: # Stage The production question it answers 1 Agent Design What should each agent do, and how do they hand off? 2 Agent Development How do I build and run them with the Agent Framework? 3 Agent Evaluations How do I know they actually work — and keep working? 4 Agent Deployment How do I ship one as a hosted service with a UI and CI gate? 5 Production Hosted Agents How do I meet enterprise data, network, and governance needs? 6 Microsoft Toolbox How do I govern tools once, and reuse them across teams? 7 Multi-Agent & A2A How do agents from different teams interoperate safely? The thread running through all seven is a single scenario: a Developer Onboarding agent system that helps a new hire find the right teammates, get a sensible first task, and pull learning resources and code snippets. It is deliberately mundane, which is exactly why it exposes the production concerns that flashy demos hide. Lesson 1 — Agent Design: three components, one graph The course defines an agent by three parts: an LLM for reasoning, tools to act, and memory to retain context. The design work is context engineering — making sure the right information reaches the model at the right moment, no more and no less. Rather than one monolithic assistant, the onboarding system is split into specialists coordinated by a triage agent using handoff orchestration: Agent Job Tool Employee Search Answer org and people questions Foundry file search over an employee-directory vector store Task Recommendation Suggest 1–3 GitHub issues for the new dev GitHub MCP Server (reads recent commits + open issues) Code Assistant Provide resources and runnable snippets Microsoft Learn MCP + Code Interpreter Architecturally this is a directed graph: User → Triage → [Employee, Learning, Coding] . Splitting responsibilities early pays off later, each agent gets a tightly scoped prompt (less hallucination), can be evaluated independently, and can be upgraded without touching its peers. Lesson 2 — Development: standalone agents with MAF Here the design becomes code. Each specialist is a small, independently runnable service built with the Microsoft Agent Framework, authenticated to Foundry with your Azure CLI login. Setup is deliberately boring: az login az account set --subscription "<your-subscription-id>" cp .env.example .env # Fill FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT and FOUNDRY_MODEL (e.g. gpt-5.1) # Create the employee-directory vector store once; note the printed VECTOR_STORE_ID python lesson-2-agent-development/setup_vector_store.py # Start an agent — serves on http://localhost:8090 python lesson-2-agent-development/employee-search-agent.py The FoundryChatClient auto-reads any FOUNDRY_ -prefixed environment variables and uses AzureCliCredential , so there are no keys in code. The lesson ships six samples, each on its own port, so you can chat with them individually in the local DevUI before wiring them together: Sample Tool Port employee-search-agent.py Foundry file search / vector store 8090 task-recommendation-agent.py GitHub MCP Server 8095 azure-learning-agent.py Microsoft Learn MCP 8092 coding-agent.py Code Interpreter 8093 learning-recommendation-agent.py Learn MCP + reasoning 8091 agent-orchestration.py Multi-agent handoff 8094 Why this matters: keeping each agent as its own process with its own port is a testability decision, not an accident. You can smoke-test one specialist in isolation, then compose them in agent-orchestration.py . Lesson 3 — Evaluation: you can't unit-test a probability distribution This is the lesson that separates a demo from a product. Agents are non-deterministic, so traditional assertions don't fit. The course uses three complementary layers: Observability / tracing — always on, via OpenTelemetry to Application Insights. Smoke tests — fast, run on every deploy. Evaluations — deeper, model-based scoring run on-demand or nightly. Turning on tracing is a single call: from agent_framework.foundry import FoundryChatClient client = FoundryChatClient() client.configure_azure_monitor() # export traces + metrics to Application Insights For quality it uses Foundry's built-in "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluators against real persisted responses (identified by response_id ), not freshly regenerated ones: Evaluator evaluator_name Measures Relevance builtin.relevance Does the response address the request? Groundedness builtin.groundedness Is it supported by retrieved data (no hallucination)? Tool-call accuracy builtin.tool_call_accuracy Were the right tools called with the right arguments? Tool-output utilization builtin.tool_output_utilization Did the agent actually use tool results? The judge model is set independently via AZURE_AI_MODEL_DEPLOYMENT_NAME , so you can evaluate a cheap production model with a stronger one. The run prints a report_url that deep-links into the Foundry portal. Lesson 4 — Deployment: a hosted agent, a UI, and a CI gate Now the agent becomes a managed service. It is deployed as a Foundry Hosted Agent a Microsoft-managed execution environment and fronted by an OpenAI ChatKit React UI talking to a FastAPI backend: ChatKit React (3000) → FastAPI backend (8001) → Foundry Hosted Agent → tools Building the agent is declarative attach tools, name it, serve it: agent = client.as_agent( name="DevOnboardingAgent", instructions="...", tools=[file_search_tool, learn_mcp_tool], ) # served with: from_agent_framework(agent).run() The recommended deploy path is the Azure Developer CLI: cd hosted-agent azd auth login azd agent deploy The genuinely production-minded part is the smoke test as a post-deploy CI gate. Six cases cover reachability, each scenario, off-topic prompt adherence, and multi-turn threading (verifying state via previous_response_id ). The GitHub Action runs them against the freshly deployed agent: export FOUNDRY_TOKEN=$(az account get-access-token \ --resource https://ai.azure.com/ --query accessToken -o tsv) python runner.py \ --project-endpoint "https://<account>.services.ai.azure.com/api/projects/<project>" \ --agent-name dev-onboarding \ --tests-file tests/smoke-tests.json Pitfall to remember: the token audience must be https://ai.azure.com/ . A cognitiveservices.azure.com token is rejected by the Responses API — a mistake that costs many engineers an afternoon. Lesson 5 — Production: separating where an agent runs from where its data lives The pivotal concept for enterprise readiness is the distinction between a Hosted Agent (compute, scaling, identity) and a Capability Host (where conversation history, files, and embeddings actually reside): Concern Hosted Agent Capability Host Compute / scaling / identity ✅ Provided — Conversation history Microsoft-managed default Redirect to your Azure Cosmos DB File uploads Microsoft-managed default Redirect to your Azure Storage Vector embeddings Microsoft-managed default Redirect to your Azure AI Search Required to run the agent? ✅ Yes ❌ Optional Required for data sovereignty? ❌ Not sufficient ✅ Yes "Basic" setup uses Microsoft-managed storage and is perfect for getting started. "Standard" setup redirects each data plane to your own Azure resources through a project-level capability host, this is how you keep customer data in your tenant, inside your network boundary: PUT .../accounts/{account}/projects/{project}/capabilityHosts/{name}?api-version=2025-06-01 { "properties": { "capabilityHostKind": "Agents", "threadStorageConnections": ["my-cosmosdb-connection"], "vectorStoreConnections": ["my-ai-search-connection"], "storageConnections": ["my-storage-connection"] } } Operational constraints worth internalising before you provision: there is one capability host per scope (a second attempt returns 409 Conflict ), configuration is immutable (delete and recreate to change it), deletion is destructive, and the account-level host must exist before the project-level one. Lesson 6 — Toolbox: govern tools once, reuse everywhere Left unchecked, every team re-implements the same tools, scatters credentials, and loses governance visibility. The Microsoft Foundry Toolbox solves this by exposing a curated, versioned set of tools behind a single MCP-compatible endpoint, with credentials held in Foundry connections rather than agent code. You build a toolbox version once: from azure.ai.projects.models import MCPTool, ToolboxSearchPreviewTool, WebSearchTool toolbox_version = project.toolboxes.create_toolbox_version( name="agent-tools", description="Web search + an MCP server + tool search", tools=[ WebSearchTool(), MCPTool( server_label="myserver", server_url="https://your-mcp-server.example.com", require_approval="never", project_connection_id="my-key-auth-connection", # credentials live in Foundry ), ToolboxSearchPreviewTool(), ], ) And every agent consumes it through one endpoint, no per-team tool code: from agent_framework import MCPStreamableHTTPTool mcp_tool = MCPStreamableHTTPTool( name="toolbox", url=TOOLBOX_ENDPOINT, # {project_endpoint}/toolboxes/{name}/mcp?api-version=v1 http_client=http_client, load_prompts=False, ) agent = chat_client.as_agent(name="my-toolbox-agent", instructions="...", tools=[mcp_tool]) Versioning is blue/green: create a new version, test it on its version-specific endpoint, then promote it to default and every consumer picks it up with zero code changes. A Guardrail (RAI) policy can be applied at the toolbox layer, independent of model-level content filters. Note the toolbox management APIs are currently preview; the portal or VS Code Foundry Toolkit are practical alternatives for creation today. Lesson 7 — Multi-Agent & A2A: agents as networked peers The final lesson contrasts two ways agents collaborate: Handoff / Workflow — in-process, same codebase, fastest, tightest coupling. Agent-to-Agent (A2A) — cross-process over an open protocol, so agents from different teams, orgs, or frameworks interoperate. A2A gives each agent a discoverable Agent Card at /.well-known/agent-card.json and a task lifecycle (submitted → working → completed/failed). The elegant part: A2AExecutor wraps an existing MAF agent with no changes to that agent's code. from agent_framework.a2a import A2AExecutor from a2a.server.apps import A2AStarletteApplication from a2a.server.tasks import InMemoryTaskStore agent_card = AgentCard( name="Coding Assistant", url="http://localhost:9000/", version="1.0.0", capabilities=AgentCapabilities(streaming=True), skills=[AgentSkill(id="generate-code", name="Generate code", tags=["code"])], ) request_handler = DefaultRequestHandler( agent_executor=A2AExecutor(agent), # wraps your existing MAF agent unchanged task_store=InMemoryTaskStore(), ) app = A2AStarletteApplication(agent_card=agent_card, http_handler=request_handler).build() Consuming a remote agent then looks exactly like calling a local one: from agent_framework.a2a import A2AAgent remote_agent = A2AAgent(name="remote-coding-assistant", url="http://localhost:9000") result = await remote_agent.run("Write a Python function that reverses a string.") Because an A2AAgent can be a participant inside a HandoffBuilder workflow, you can mix in-process routing with remote services in the same orchestration. For enterprise use, A2AAgent accepts an auth_interceptor for bearer tokens, and the Agent Card carries security_schemes . Responsible and secure by design Production readiness in this course is not just uptime, it is governance: Identity over keys — AzureCliCredential and managed identity throughout; no secrets in code. Least privilege — CI runners get a scoped Azure AI User role assignment on the specific project. Data sovereignty — capability hosts keep conversation history, files, and embeddings in your own Cosmos DB, Storage, and AI Search. Tool approval and guardrails — MCP approval_mode and toolbox-level RAI policy gate what agents can do. Grounded evaluation — groundedness and tool-utilization scoring catch hallucination and unused-tool behaviour before users do. Cost hygiene — the lessons create real Azure resources; delete the resource group when done: az group delete --name <rg> --yes --no-wait . Key takeaways Design as a graph of specialists. Handoff orchestration with tightly scoped agents beats one monolith on reliability and testability. One .run() contract, many backends. The Agent Framework keeps orchestration code stable from local dev to hosted production. Evaluate continuously. Tracing + smoke tests + model-based evaluators are three layers, not alternatives. Separate compute from data. Hosted Agents run the agent; Capability Hosts give you sovereignty — you need both for enterprise. Govern tools centrally. A versioned toolbox behind one MCP endpoint kills tool sprawl and credential duplication. Open protocols for interop. A2A lets agents cross team, org, and framework boundaries without rewrites. Get started Clone the repo (skip the 50+ translations for a faster download) and work through the lessons in order: git clone --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/microsoft/Building-AI-Agents-From-Zero-To-Production.git cd Building-AI-Agents-From-Zero-To-Production git sparse-checkout set --no-cone '/*' '!translations' '!translated_images' References Building AI Agents from Zero to Production — course repo Microsoft Agent Framework Microsoft Foundry documentation Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol specification a2a-python SDK AI Agents for Beginners MCP for Beginners Microsoft Foundry DiscordAzure Function App — Queue-Based Architecture for Long-Running Sync Jobs
The Problem: HTTP Triggers and Long-Running Jobs Don't Mix Here's a situation you've probably run into: you have a job that needs to loop over dozens of Azure resources, call APIs, and do real work. You wrap it in an HTTP-triggered Azure Function so it can be called on demand. It works great and after a few minutes, the caller gets a 504 Gateway Timeout. The 230-second limit is enforced by Azure Front Door / the platform load balancer. It cannot be overridden by app settings or host configuration. Any HTTP trigger that runs longer than ~3.5 minutes will timeout for the caller. In our case, the job iterates over 30+ Azure subscriptions — for each one it switches context, lists resources, and triggers image imports. Total runtime: anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes depending on how many ACRs need updating. Way over the limit. The Solution: Decouple Request from Execution via a Queue The fix is clean once you see it: the HTTP trigger shouldn't do the work — it should just accept the work and hand it off. That's what a queue is for. The flow splits into two independent phases: Request phase — The HTTP trigger validates the caller (JWT + app role check), packages the job parameters into a queue message, and returns 202 Accepted. This takes under 3 seconds. Execution phase — A Queue Trigger picks up the message and runs the actual sync. No HTTP connection involved, so there's no timeout. On a Dedicated (P-series) plan, execution time is unlimited. Approach What the caller gets Result HTTP trigger → run sync inline Waits for the full job to complete 504 TIMEOUT after 230 seconds HTTP trigger → Queue → Queue Trigger 202 Accepted immediately NO TIMEOUT job runs as long as needed 🤸♀️There's an added bonus - Reliability in Azure Queue Storage: Azure Storage Queues give you automatic retry out of the box. If the job crashes halfway through, the message becomes visible again after a visibility timeout and the Queue Trigger picks it up for a retry — up to 5 attempts before the message is moved to the poison queue. No retry logic to write 🤸♀️. Locking Down the Endpoint Since the HTTP trigger is the public entry point, it needs solid auth. We layer two things: ⭐Use EasyAuth for the "is this a real Entra ID token?" check, and a custom App Role for the "is this person allowed to trigger syncs?" check. These are independent concerns and should stay that way. Layer What it does How EasyAuth (Entra ID) Rejects requests without a valid Entra ID Bearer token — before your code even runs Configured at the Function App level via the Authentication blade App Role check Validates that the token contains the SyncJob.Execute role — only assigned users/SPs can trigger the job Decoded in the function code from the JWT roles claim Managed Identity Authenticates the Function App to Azure APIs (no credentials in code) Connect-AzAccount -Identity — identity assigned via RBAC One gotcha worth knowing: when using v2 tokens (which is the default with modern App Registrations), the aud claim in the token is the raw App ID GUID — not the api:// prefixed URI. You need to explicitly add both forms to your allowedAudiences in EasyAuth, otherwise valid tokens get rejected. APP_ID="<your-app-id>" TENANT_ID="<your-tenant-id>" FUNCTION_APP_URL="https://<your-function-app>.azurewebsites.net" # Interactive login (device code flow — works from any terminal) az login --tenant "${TENANT_ID}" \ --scope "api://${APP_ID}/.default" \ --use-device-code TOKEN=$(az account get-access-token \ --scope "api://${APP_ID}/.default" \ --query accessToken -o tsv) # Trigger the sync — returns 202 immediately curl -s -X POST "${FUNCTION_APP_URL}/api/SyncContainerRegistryHttpTrigger" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" Passing Parameters Through the Queue One nice property of this pattern: the queue message is just JSON, so you can pass whatever parameters the job needs. In our case, we pass a subscriptionFilter wildcard so callers can target a subset of subscriptions without touching any code. The parameter travels the full chain: HTTP body → queue message → Queue Trigger → PowerShell script parameter. Here's how each step handles it. Step 1 — HTTP Trigger reads the body and enqueues the message using the Push-OutputBinding output binding. Azure Functions wires the binding to the queue automatically — no SDK call needed: param($Request, $TriggerMetadata) # ... decode the JWT, check role assignment $queuePayload = @{ triggeredBy = $decoded.Payload.upn ?? $decoded.Payload.oid triggeredAt = (Get-Date -Format 'o') subscriptionFilter = if ($body.subscriptionFilter) { $body.subscriptionFilter } else { "*" } } | ConvertTo-Json -Compress Push-OutputBinding -Name QueueMessage -Value $queuePayload Push-OutputBinding -Name Response -Value ([HttpResponseContext]@{ StatusCode = [System.Net.HttpStatusCode]::Accepted Body = @{ message = "Sync job queued. Check Azure Monitor logs for execution status." } }) ⭐Push-OutputBinding is how Azure Functions PowerShell workers write to output bindings (queues, blobs, HTTP responses…). The binding name QueueMessage maps to the queue defined in function.json — the runtime handles serialisation and delivery. Step 2 — Queue Trigger passes the filter to the script as a named parameter: param($QueueItem, $TriggerMetadata) Write-Host "Triggered SyncContainerRegistry via Storage Queue. Payload: $QueueItem" $subscriptionFilter = if ($QueueItem.subscriptionFilter) { $QueueItem.subscriptionFilter } else { "*" } $SubscriptionFilter = $subscriptionFilter . "$PSScriptRoot/../SyncContainerRegistry/run.ps1" Step 3 — Long running job with the filter as parameter: param($Timer) if (-not $SubscriptionFilter) { $SubscriptionFilter = "*" } $subscriptions = Get-AzSubscription | Where-Object { $_.Name -like $SubscriptionFilter } foreach ($subscription in $subscriptions) { Set-AzContext -SubscriptionId $subscription.Id | Out-Null # ... do the work } Targeting a subset of subscriptions # Sync all subscriptions (default — omit the body) curl -s -X POST "${FUNCTION_APP_URL}/api/SyncContainerRegistryHttpTrigger" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" # Sync only subscriptions matching a pattern curl -s -X POST "${FUNCTION_APP_URL}/api/SyncContainerRegistryHttpTrigger" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"subscriptionFilter": "*project-alpha*"}' ⭐PowerShell's -like operator uses * as a wildcard anywhere in the string. The pattern *project-alpha* matches sub-mycompany-project-alpha-prd, sub-mycompany-project-alpha-dev, etc. A pattern without a leading * only matches from the start of the string — keep this in mind when naming subscriptions. Pushing a Message Directly via PowerShell You can also push a message straight to the queue without going through the HTTP trigger — useful for testing, scripting, or bypassing the auth layer in a controlled environment. Connect-AzAccount # or -Identity for a Managed Identity context $storageAccount = "<your-storage-account>" $queueName = "sync-job-queue" # Build the payload — same shape the HTTP trigger produces $payload = @{ triggeredBy = $env:USERNAME triggeredAt = (Get-Date -Format 'o') subscriptionFilter = "*project-alpha*" # or "*" for all } | ConvertTo-Json -Compress # Get a queue client via the connected account (no key needed) $ctx = New-AzStorageContext -StorageAccountName $storageAccount -UseConnectedAccount $queue = Get-AzStorageQueue -Name $queueName -Context $ctx $queue.QueueClient.SendMessage($payload) ⭐ -UseConnectedAccount authenticates via the current Connect-AzAccount session — no storage key required, as long as your identity has the Storage Queue Data Message Sender role on the storage account. The Queue Message The HTTP trigger packages the caller identity and filter into a simple JSON payload before enqueuing. The Queue Trigger reads it back as a deserialised PowerShell object — no manual JSON parsing needed. { "triggeredBy": "user@company.com", "triggeredAt": "2026-06-01T11:03:55.570+02:00", "subscriptionFilter": "*project-alpha*" } Design Decisions at a Glance Decision Choice Why Async execution Azure Storage Queue HTTP trigger has a hard 230s timeout. The sync job takes 2–10 minutes. The queue decouples acceptance from execution — and gives us retry for free. Authentication EasyAuth + App Role No credentials in code. Access is controlled via Entra ID app roles — revocable per user without touching infrastructure. Azure identity Managed Identity No secrets to rotate or store. The Function App authenticates to Azure APIs using its platform-assigned identity. Job parameter Wildcard filter via queue payload Lets callers target any subscription subset without code changes. The filter travels through the queue — the Queue Trigger just passes it along. Hosting plan Dedicated (P-series) Consumption plan caps function execution at 10 minutes. A Dedicated plan has no execution time limit — essential when the job can run longer. See you in the Cloud JamesdldToken Economics: The New FinOps for Agentic AI
In AI applications, tokens are now cost — and token economics deserves architectural attention For a long time, AI application design started with model capability: Can the model write code? Can it reason? Can it use tools? Can it handle long context? Those questions still matter, but in the age of agentic applications, they are no longer sufficient. The more important production question is this: How many tokens does the architecture burn to complete one useful task? A classic chat application often maps one user turn to one model call. An agentic system is different. One user goal can trigger planning, retrieval, tool selection, tool execution, result interpretation, reflection, repair, and summarization. The user sees one instruction; the system may execute dozens of model calls behind the scenes. Tokens are no longer just a measure of text length. They become a measure of system design, runtime behavior, developer workflow, and business cost. GitHub Copilot’s 2026 move to usage-based billing through GitHub AI Credits captures the industry shift clearly. Usage is now aligned with token consumption, including input, output, and cached tokens. That matters because Copilot has evolved from an in-editor assistant into an agentic platform that can handle long, multi-step coding sessions across repositories. In that world, a tiny prompt and a multi-hour autonomous coding workflow should not be treated as the same economic unit. Token economics is therefore not about telling developers to “write shorter prompts.” It is about designing systems where: useful context is preserved, while noise is removed; repeated context is cached or deduplicated; simple tasks do not pay for frontier models; short-term state is managed structurally instead of copied repeatedly; every model call is metered, comparable, and governed. In short: token economics is the practice of making agentic AI economically sustainable. Scenario thinking: GitHub Copilot billing, Copilot SDK, GPT-5.5, Anthropic, and MAI-Code Model The new GitHub Copilot billing model provides a useful framing for developers. Copilot is no longer only autocomplete. It is becoming a programmable agentic platform. It can use models, call tools, work across files, stream responses, and participate in long-running coding workflows. With the GitHub Copilot SDK, developers can embed that agentic runtime into their own applications, services, and developer tools. That is powerful, but it also changes the cost model. Once an agent loop becomes programmable, token cost also needs to become programmable. If a system can plan, call tools, edit files, retry, repair, and summarize, it also needs to meter, route, cache, compress, and evaluate. EvalAgentic gives this idea a concrete playground. The project groups models into cost and capability tiers: Tier Example models Example price / 1K tokens Typical use LARGE claude-opus-4.8, gpt-5.5 $0.030 Agents, code generation, multi-step reasoning MID gpt-5.4-mini $0.012 Dialogue, summarization, extraction TINY gpt-5-mini $0.001 Classification, keyword matching, rule-like tasks This tiering lets us reason about real scenarios: GPT-5.5-class models are valuable for hard reasoning and engineering workflows, but they should not be the default for every step. Using a frontier model for simple classification is like hiring a principal architect to label folders. Anthropic high-capability models can be excellent for complex reasoning and coding, but they benefit from routing discipline. Requirements analysis, test interpretation, deployment explanation, and code generation may not need the same model tier. MAI-Code Model-style coding models should be treated as specialized capability layers. Their value is not just “better code generation”; it is deciding when code-specialized intelligence should be invoked in a larger agent pipeline. The real question is not “Which model is the best?” It is: Which model is the most economical and reliable for this step of this workflow? Four engineering techniques for saving tokens Context Compression: turn long text into executable structure Implementation principle Context Compression converts long natural-language context into the structured information an agent actually needs. Business documents are often verbose: resumes, contracts, product manuals, requirements, and support logs contain narrative text, boilerplate, repeated explanations, and low-value context. The next agent step may only need a few fields. EvalAgentic demonstrates this with a long resume-like input that is compressed into a compact JSON object. Instead of injecting the full original text into every prompt, the system extracts key fields and dynamically injects only the data required by the current task. A practical compression pipeline includes: Redundancy detection — identify long-tail text, repeated descriptions, stale history, and low-value context. Structured extraction — use Copilot or a mid-tier model to transform prose into JSON, tables, or typed schemas. Dynamic injection — inject only the fields needed for the next step. Recoverable references — preserve source pointers so compressed context remains auditable. How to evaluate Prompt token reduction before and after compression. Answer quality and task success rate. Schema fidelity and missing-field rate. Latency improvement. Cost per successful task. Compression is not summarization. Summaries are designed for humans. Structured compression is designed for agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache: stop paying twice for the same context Implementation principle Many agent systems waste tokens because they repeatedly send the same context. The same resume, contract, repository README, user profile, API documentation, or business rule can be copied across turns and agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache applies a simple principle: if context has already been processed, do not pay to process it again unless it has changed. A concrete design includes: compute a hash or semantic key for source context; reuse extracted structured results when content is identical or equivalent; apply a TTL for repeated entities, such as the 24-hour cache pattern shown in EvalAgentic; organize stable prompt prefixes to benefit from provider-level prompt caching where available; store shared context in an artifact store or memory layer so multiple agents do not copy the same blob. How to evaluate Cache hit rate. Cached token ratio. Duplicate prompt rate. Cost delta before and after caching. Correctness under cache, especially stale-cache failures. Caching is not “save everything forever.” Good caching knows when to reuse and when to invalidate. On-Demand Model Routing: let task complexity decide model tier Implementation principle On-Demand Model Routing routes each request to the cheapest model that can complete the task reliably. The entry point can use a rule tree, a lightweight classifier, or a hybrid complexity score. EvalAgentic’s routing tree is intentionally easy to explain: INCOMING REQUEST └─ Prompt < 500 tokens? ── YES ─→ TINY: classify / extract └─ NO ──→ multi-step reasoning? ├─ NO ─→ MID: dialogue / summary └─ YES ─→ LARGE: agent / code The engineering logic is straightforward: simple classification and keyword matching go to TINY; summarization and structured conversion go to MID; multi-step reasoning, coding, cross-file changes, and orchestration go to LARGE; code-specialized models such as MAI-Code Model can be placed in the coding phase rather than used across the whole pipeline. How to evaluate Routing accuracy. Cost per route. Quality regression by tier. Escalation rate from small models to larger models. End-to-end success rate. Routing does not mean “always use the smallest model.” It means frontier intelligence is reserved for the steps where it actually changes the outcome. Short-term Memory: preserve state instead of replaying history Implementation principle Short-term Memory controls context growth across multi-turn and multi-agent workflows. Without it, agents often replay the full conversation history, full tool outputs, and full intermediate reasoning on every turn. The context grows; quality may not improve; the bill definitely does. A better design stores state structurally: user goal; current plan; tool outputs and references; failure reasons; next actions; handoff artifacts between agents. In a multi-agent coding pipeline, the Requirements Agent should hand off a structured spec. The Coding Agent should read that spec, not the entire prior conversation. The Testing Agent should consume testable artifacts, not every word produced by the Coding Agent. How to evaluate Context growth curve across turns. Memory retrieval precision. Rework rate caused by missing state. Recovery quality after failed steps. Average input tokens per turn. Short-term memory is not about remembering everything. It is about remembering the next useful thing. EvalAgentic as a concrete evaluation example EvalAgentic is effective as an evangelism project because it turns token economics into an observable before/after system. The architecture has five layers: Frontend — frontend/index.html provides Tabs A / B / C, live SSE logs, and before/after charts. API — backend/server.py exposes FastAPI routes and Server-Sent Events streaming. Orchestration — eval.py handles A/B evaluation; coding_agents.py handles the multi-agent coding scenario. Core — compressor.py, router.py, gh_models.py, and token_meter.py implement compression, routing, Copilot SDK calls, and token metering. Providers — GitHub Copilot SDK and Microsoft Agent Framework provide model access and agent orchestration. Tab A: Compression comparison Tab A compares long-form context before and after structured compression. The key message is that token saving does not come from writing a clever sentence. It comes from converting verbose context into a structured artifact that downstream agents can consume efficiently. Tab B: On-demand model routing Tab B demonstrates that cost is not only about raw token count. If a system routes simple tasks to cheaper tiers and reserves expensive models for complex reasoning, total cost can fall even if some token counts increase. This is a subtle but important point: token economics is not token starvation; it is model portfolio optimization. Tab C: Coding scenario — multi-agent with Agent Framework Tab C is the most persuasive demo. The same deliverable — a Taobao-like goods-list site with HTML + JavaScript frontend, Flask backend, and Docker deployment — is produced twice by a four-agent pipeline: Requirements Agent; Coding Agent; Testing Agent; Deployment Agent. The before pipeline uses no compression and sends every agent to GPT-5.5 / LARGE. The after pipeline injects a compressed JSON spec and uses on-demand routing: requirements can use MID, coding can use LARGE, testing can use MID, and deployment can use TINY. This mirrors real enterprise development. Architecture and complex code generation may deserve frontier models. Test interpretation, deployment packaging, and simple validation often do not. Summary and refinement based on the project diagrams The EvalAgentic README describes three important visuals: the architecture flow, the routing tree, and the token-meter design. Together, they form a governance loop: User Scenario ↓ Context Compression ↓ Prompt Deduplication / Cache ↓ On-Demand Model Routing ↓ Short-term Memory ↓ Token Metering & Budget Actions ↓ Before / After Evaluation Optimize the path, not only the prompt Many teams start token optimization by editing prompt wording. That helps, but the largest waste usually lives in the execution path: how many calls are made, how much context is repeated, how often tools retry, and whether every step uses the same expensive model. EvalAgentic makes the path visible through A/B comparisons. Token Meter is the control plane of cost governance EvalAgentic’s token_meter.py uses a non-invasive interceptor pattern: INTERCEPTOR (@token_meter) ↓ COUNTER CORE: accounting / budget threshold / trigger ↓ ACTION HUB: throttle (>80% budget) / rollback (>budget) This is the right architectural instinct. Production systems need thresholds, throttling, rollback, and traceability. Without those controls, one retry loop can quietly turn a small user request into a budget incident. Cost metrics must be evaluated with quality metrics A system that cuts cost by 80% but drops success rate by 50% is not optimized. It is broken more cheaply. The evaluation matrix should combine cost, quality, latency, and reliability: Dimension Metric Why it matters Cost Cost per successful task Measures the real unit economics Token Input / output / cached tokens Identifies compression and cache opportunities Quality Pass rate / regression rate Ensures cheaper tiers do not break outcomes Efficiency Latency / retry count Prevents cheap models from causing expensive retries Governance Budget breach / rollback count Validates runtime control Narrative A simple three-line narrative works well for demos: Token is no longer a technical detail. It is the bill of your architecture. EvalAgentic shows the same scenario before and after cost-aware design. The goal is not to make models cheaper; the goal is to make agent systems economically governable. For a developer audience, the sharper version is: A good agent does not use the biggest model everywhere. It uses the right intelligence at the right step, with the right context, under the right budget. Practical recommendations for real projects Establish a token baseline first. Measure input, output, retries, tool calls, and cost per scenario before optimizing. Make compression a component, not a prompt habit. Define schemas, cache policies, and fallback behavior. Introduce a model routing matrix. Route by task type, complexity, risk, latency, and cost. Define handoff contracts between agents. Pass structured artifacts, not endless conversation history. Evaluate every optimization with A/B tests. Compare cost, quality, latency, and stability. Add budget actions. Throttle at a threshold, rollback on breach, and add circuit breakers for failed retries. Closing: token economics is the second curve of agent engineering The first phase of AI application development was about calling models. The second phase was about putting models into products. The next phase of agentic AI is about running those systems reliably, affordably, and governably. EvalAgentic matters because it turns Context Compression, Prompt Deduplication / Cache, On-Demand Model Routing, and Short-term Memory into something developers can run, compare, and explain. It moves token economics from opinion to instrumentation. Future AI applications will not only ask: How smart is this agent? They will ask: How many tokens does it spend per completed task? Which model did it use? Did it hit cache? Did retries run away? Did the system reserve frontier intelligence for the steps that deserved it? References kinfey/EvalAgentic GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing Updates to GitHub Copilot billing and plans Copilot SDK - GitHub DocsMicrosoft Defender for Cloud Customer Newsletter
What's new in Defender for Cloud? Microsoft Defender for Open-Source Relational Databases is now generally available for Amazon Web Services Relational Database Service (AWS RDS) instances. Receive database threat protection and sensitive data discovery insights for supported open-source relational databases, including Aurora PostgreSQL, Aurora MySQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and MariaDB on AWS RDS. For more information, see our public documentation. Expanded multicloud security coverage now GA Microsoft Defender for Cloud's expanded multicloud security coverage is now generally available. This release significantly broadens posture assessment for AWS and GCP environments, adding support for about 90 new resource types and over 200 new security recommendations across data, identity and access, networking, compute, and container categories. For more details, please refer to this documentation. Check out other updates from last month here! Check out monthly news for the rest of the MTP suite here! Blogs of the month In June, our team published the following blog posts we would like to share: Now Generally Available: Microsoft Defender for open source relational databases on AWS RDS Start Secure, Stay Secure: How Microsoft is Closing the Gap from Code to Runtime The end of patching era for containers: Microsoft Defender for Cloud expands hardened image support Closing the loop on container security: From code to runtime in the AI era Microsoft Defender for Cloud expands multicloud coverage across AWS and Google Cloud Defender for Cloud in the field Watch the latest Defender for Cloud in the Field YouTube episode here: Stay Secure: AI-powered Faster fixes Visit our YouTube page GitHub Community Check out Defender for Cloud GitHub lab module 25. It walks through the integration between Defender for Cloud and XDR to provide a comprehensive CDR solution. Module 25 - MDC and Defender portal integration Visit our GitHub page Customer journey Discover how other organizations successfully use Microsoft Defender for Cloud to protect their cloud workloads. This month we are featuring Hassan Allam Holding. Hassan Allam Holding is an Egyptian private-sector company with operations spanning engineering, construction, and infrastructure investment and was facing operational complexity. To overcome, they leveraged an end-to-end Microsoft Security ecosystem with Defender XDR, which integrates with Defender for Cloud and other products to centralize detection and signals across endpoint, identity, email and cloud workloads. As a result, alert noise reduce by up to 90%, and Hassan Allam Holding is able to respond faster with far less complexity. Join our community! We offer several customer connection programs within our private communities. By signing up, you can help us shape our products through activities such as reviewing product roadmaps, participating in co-design, previewing features, and staying up-to-date with announcements. Sign up at aka.ms/JoinCCP. We greatly value your input on the types of content that enhance your understanding of our security products. Your insights are crucial in guiding the development of our future public content. We aim to deliver material that not only educates but also resonates with your daily security challenges. Whether it’s through in-depth live webinars, real-world case studies, comprehensive best practice guides through blogs, or the latest product updates, we want to ensure our content meets your needs. Please submit your feedback on which of these formats do you find most beneficial and are there any specific topics you’re interested in https://aka.ms/PublicContentFeedback. Note: If you want to stay current with Defender for Cloud and receive updates in your inbox, please consider subscribing to our monthly newsletter: https://aka.ms/MDCNewsSubscribe
Windows 365 and developer environments: how do you balance security and productivity?
Hi everyone, I’d like to raise a topic that we are currently struggling with, and I suspect many other organizations are facing the same challenge. We are in the process of establishing a Windows 365–based development environment, where developers work in Cloud PCs. This is largely driven by: a BYOD strategy security requirements (no sensitive code on unmanaged devices) the need for standardization However, this quickly becomes complex in practice. The core challenge We are trying to balance three competing priorities: 1. Security requirements No sensitive code on local devices Minimal attack surface Zero Trust principles and Conditional Access Full traceability of identity and actions 2. Developer needs Local admin rights to be able to do their work Freedom to install tools, SDKs, and runtimes Flexibility without constant blocking Fast iteration cycles The reality is that if it takes too long to get access or permissions, it breaks the developer workflow. 3. IT and governance Standardization of environments Manageability and patching License and cost control Compliance and auditability The practical dilemma Developers want to be local admins on their machines Security teams prefer: Just-In-Time access (PIM), or No admin privileges at all In practice: PIM tends not to work well for developers It introduces too much friction It disrupts flow and often leads to workarounds What we are currently exploring We are testing a model where: Developers work in Windows 365 Cloud PCs They use their regular corporate identity (Entra ID) Isolation is achieved through the environment, not separate accounts Developers have local admin rights within the Cloud PC However, this raises a new question: How do we secure an environment where the user is an admin? Questions to the community I would really appreciate insights from others who have been through similar scenarios: 1. Identity vs privilege Do you use the same identity for everything, or separate user/admin accounts? How far do you take identity separation? 2. Local admin rights Do you allow developers to have local admin rights? Is it permanent or Just-In-Time? If JIT, how do you make it work without impacting productivity? 3. Cloud-based development environments If you are using Windows 365, Dev Box, or AVD: Has this made it easier to relax restrictions? Or are you facing the same challenges, just in the cloud? 4. Guardrails instead of restrictions Instead of trying to prevent everything: EDR / endpoint protection Conditional Access Network isolation Monitoring and detection Has anyone successfully shifted from strict control to strong guardrails and detection? Current reflection I am starting to think that: Focusing on secure, isolated environments for development may be more effective than trying to tightly control every individual action. In other words: secure the platform not every single user behavior But this is far from straightforward. Purpose of this discussion The goal is to find a realistic blueprint that: maintains high developer productivity meets security requirements minimizes friction in day-to-day work Not something theoretically perfect, but something that actually works. If you have experience in this area, I would really value your input: what has worked well what has not worked key design decisions you would recommend Thanks in advance.
Calender for Vacation and for general overview of a team
Hi, we are using Teams since one week now and I´m searching for an way to implement an "vacation calender". To keep it simple I want that every user can use his personal calender in Outlook (Exchange). So in case a team member has holiday it should be added to the personal calender and this information I want to share in a general calender for the hole team. We have already a "Team" for all members of the team. Sorry as I´m new to Teams I don´t know how to implement.How to build long-running MCP tools on Azure Functions
Recently, a customer building servers with the Azure Functions MCP extension reached out and asked: How do I handle tools that take longer than the client is willing to wait? This becomes especially relevant when tool calls move beyond simple request/response into multi-step workflows and long-running operations. At the same time, MCP is evolving to address exactly this. The Tasks extension is introduced in the 2026-07-28 release candidate, defining a standard way to model long-running work. In this post, we’ll walk through how to build long-running MCP tools on Azure Functions using Durable Functions , a framework for authoring stateful, long-running workflows as ordinary code, with checkpointing, scaling, and recovery handled automatically. MCP tools today Today, MCP tools are fundamentally request/response: the client issues a tools/call the server returns a result This works well for fast operations, but breaks down when: workflows take minutes execution depends on multiple steps latency is unpredictable In practice, clients enforce their own tool-call timeouts. These aren't standardized by the MCP spec and vary per client, but they're often in the ~30–60 second range. If a tool exceeds that window: In practice, clients often enforce short timeouts. If a tool exceeds that window: the client times out the agent observes a failed call the underlying work may still be running So the core issue is that you have synchronous tool calls don’t naturally model long-running work. The MCP Tasks extension The Tasks extension to address this. With the extension, a server can respond to a tools/call with an asynchronous task handle instead of a final result, and the client drives the lifecycle from there: tasks/get: poll the task's status tasks/update: submit input back to the server if the task reaches input_required tasks/cancel: cancel an in-flight task A task carries a status ("working", "input_required", "completed", "failed", or "cancelled") and on completion, the final result. Task creation is server-directed: the client advertises support by including the extension in its per-request capabilities, and the server decides per request whether to return a task. A server won't return a task to a client that hasn't advertised support. It's important to note that Tasks rely on ecosystem support. Clients must advertise the extension, and MCP SDKs must implement the task lifecycle, before servers can use it. So while Tasks is now a defined extension, broad client and SDK support is still in progress. Implement long-runng tasks with Durable Functions today Until the Tasks extension is broadly supported across clients, we need a pattern that works with existing request/response clients and supports long-running execution. The following samples show how, using Durable Functions: Python NET The long-running work in this sample mines a short chain of blocks. Each block requires solving a computational puzzle where the system keeps trying different inputs until it finds one that produces a result matching a specific pattern (for example, starting with a certain number of zeros). Because this involves lots of trial and error, it naturally takes time, making it a good example of a long-running workflow. The server in the sample exposes two tools: start_mining Starts a Durable Functions orchestration to mine the blocks Waits briefly (within a configurable budget) Returns result inline if completed within budget OR returns workflow_id if still running get_mining_result Takes the workflow_id Returns the current state, e.g. "completed", "running", "failed", or "not_found" To ensure that the agent calls the tools in the right order, workflow_id is a required parameter of get_mining_result, so the agent can't poll without starting a mining run first. Also, the "running" response carries a poll_after_seconds and a next instruction, ensuring the agent to poll again if work is not done rather than give up or assume completion. Even so, the poll path still relies on the agent correctly remembering, and not hallucinating, the workflow_id it was handed. If it garbles or invents an id, the poll lands on the wrong instance or none at all (which is why get_mining_result returns "not_found" rather than guessing). What changes with the Tasks extension Once the Tasks extension is fully implemented across clients and SDKs, the model becomes simpler and more reliable: the server returns a Task handle, the client manages the polling and lifecyle calls, and the SDK tracks execution state. This removes a key limitation of today’s solution, which requires the agent to remember and correctly pass identifiers like workflow_id. Call to action Try out the sample and let us know whether it addresses your MCP needs around long-running or workflow type tools!
How are you handling performance review data across Teams, Outlook, and SharePoint?
We just wrapped up our mid-year review cycle and it was a mess. Managers had to go through old Teams chat messages to find feedback they gave or go through our sharepoint documents to see where everyones goals were. You think there is a way I can use copilot inside Microsoft Teams to somehow parse through all of this before reviews? I saw this app performance 365 or something like that in the app store but I dont think its an official Microsoft app. Any ideas?GitHub Copilot App - Canvas Is Not a UI Builder
What if your development environment didn't just help you write code, but helped you observe, steer, and evolve a living system while it runs? That's the shift GitHub Copilot App Canvas represents. Canvas redefines how developers interact with agent-driven software: not by building traditional user interfaces, but by creating interactive environments where humans and AI co-create, test, and iterate in real time. This post walks through a real Canvas extension we built, a Multi-Agent Dev Canvas that demonstrates how Canvas becomes a runtime observability and control plane for an agent-driven system. We'll cover why Canvas exists, how it differs from traditional UI development, and how you can use it to accelerate the design-test-evolve loop for any multi-agent application. The Misconception: "Canvas Is for Building UIs" The first instinct many developers have when they see Canvas is to treat it like a UI framework, a place to build dashboards, boards, or user-facing applications. That's not what Canvas is for. Here's the distinction that matters: Traditional UIs are for using software. They serve end-users who interact with a finished product. Canvas is for shaping software while it runs. It serves developers and AI agents who are actively building, testing, and evolving a system. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never try to solve in a visible way. It's the observability layer, the control plane, the validation surface — all the things you need during development that disappear before production. Think of it this way: you wouldn't ship your debugger to users, but you absolutely need it while building. What We Built: A Multi-Agent Dev Canvas To demonstrate Canvas as a development runtime, we built a Multi-Agent Dev Canvas, a standalone GitHub Copilot Canvas extension (this repo, copilot-canvas-runtime) that treats an entire multi-agent system as a living, observable environment. The same pattern applies to any agent-driven system built on services such as Microsoft Foundry. The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas: a runtime observability and control plane where developers and AI agents collaborate to design, test, and evolve an agent-driven system in real time. The canvas provides four integrated panels: System View: See Your Agents Working Five specialised agents are displayed as live cards with real-time status indicators. Each card shows the agent's name, responsibility, current status (idle, running, done, or error), task count, and last action taken. When an agent is active, its card pulses blue. When it fails, it glows red. You see the system breathe. decompose_system — Breaks requirements into agent tasks execute_workflow — Coordinates agents to perform tasks validate_output — Runs evaluation tests and returns structured results update_system_design — Modifies architecture based on feedback track_state — Persists and updates system state over time Task Flows: Watch Work Move Through the Pipeline Below the agents, a flow graph visualises how tasks route between agents. When you decompose a system requirement like "Build an AI-powered code review agent," the canvas shows five components (pr-ingestion, code-analysis, feedback-generator, learning-loop, notification-service) flowing from the decomposer to the executor and designer agents. Each flow carries a status badge, pending, pass, or fail. Validation Panel: Continuous Testing, Not Afterthought Testing The validation panel displays structured test results with pass/fail badges and reasoning. When you run validation, each test case evaluates against specific criteria: ✅ "PR ingestion handles large diffs" — Meets criteria: process diffs over 5,000 lines without timeout ❌ "Feedback is actionable" — Failed: does not satisfy criteria that each suggestion includes a code fix ✅ "Learning loop converges" — Meets criteria: accept rate improves over 10 iterations ✅ "Notifications are non-blocking" — Meets criteria: delivery latency under 500ms This isn't a test runner you invoke separately, it's a validation surface embedded in the development loop. You see failures the moment they happen, in context, alongside the agents and flows that produced them. Live State Timeline: Every Mutation, Visible The right panel tracks every state change with timestamps. Decomposition events, workflow executions, validation runs, failure injections — all appear chronologically. This is the system's memory, visible to both the human developer and the AI agents working alongside them. Canvas as a Runtime: The Key Capabilities What makes Canvas a runtime rather than a display layer is that the agent can act through it. The canvas exposes seven agent-callable actions: Action What It Does decompose_system Accept requirements and components, generate task flows, update the system design execute_workflow Run pending tasks through the agent pipeline, produce artifacts validate_output Evaluate test cases against criteria, return structured pass/fail with reasoning update_system_design Modify the architecture description, constraints, or component list live track_state Read the full system state — agents, flows, validations, history, artifacts inject_failure Force an agent into an error state to test system adaptation pause_resume Toggle execution on and off The human developer can click Decompose, Execute, or Validate directly in the canvas. The AI agent can invoke the same actions programmatically. Both parties operate on the same surface, the same state, the same system, that's what makes Canvas collaborative in a way traditional tooling is not. Why This Matters: Canvas vs. Figma vs. Traditional UIs It helps to position Canvas against tools developers already know: Figma is Human-to-Human collaboration on design. Multiple people interact with the same visual surface, but nothing executes. It's a design tool. Traditional UIs are Human-to-System. Users interact with finished software through a polished interface. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System. It's a shared space where things actually execute. The developer steers, the AI acts, and the system evolves, all visible, all in real time. Canvas is collaborative in the Figma sense — it's a shared space, it's visual, multiple participants interact with the same surface. But unlike Figma, the participants include AI agents, and the surface isn't a mockup — it's a live system. How the Extension Works: Under the Hood A Canvas extension is a standard GitHub Copilot CLI extension, a single extension.mjs file that speaks JSON-RPC over stdio. The key components: 1. State Management Each canvas instance maintains its own system state: agents, task flows, validations, a state history timeline, artifacts, and the current system design. State is held in-memory per instance and pushed to the iframe via Server-Sent Events whenever it changes. function createInitialState() { return { agents: [ { id: "decomposer", name: "decompose_system", status: "idle", responsibility: "Break requirements into agent tasks" }, { id: "executor", name: "execute_workflow", status: "idle", responsibility: "Coordinate agents to perform tasks" }, // ... three more agents ], taskFlows: [], validations: [], stateHistory: [], artifacts: [], systemDesign: { description: "", constraints: [], components: [] }, execution: { paused: false, stepCount: 0 }, }; } 2. Real-Time Updates via Server-Sent Events The canvas runs a loopback HTTP server per instance. The iframe connects to an /events endpoint and receives state updates as they happen — no polling, no websocket complexity. if (req.url === "/events") { res.writeHead(200, { "Content-Type": "text/event-stream", "Cache-Control": "no-cache" }); clients.add(res); // Push current state immediately on connect res.write(`data: ${JSON.stringify(getState(instanceId))}\n\n`); } 3. Dual Interaction Model Every action is available through two paths. The human clicks a button in the iframe, which POSTs to the local server. The AI agent calls invoke_canvas_action through the SDK. Both paths mutate the same state and trigger the same SSE broadcast. Neither is privileged over the other. 4. Canvas Declaration The canvas registers with the Copilot SDK using createCanvas , declaring its identity, description, and all agent-callable actions with JSON Schema validation on inputs: createCanvas({ id: "multi-agent-dev", displayName: "Multi-Agent Dev Canvas", description: "Runtime observability and control plane for multi-agent development", actions: [ { name: "decompose_system", description: "Break requirements into agent tasks", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: { requirements: { type: "string" }, components: { type: "array", items: { type: "string" } } }, required: ["requirements"] }, handler: async (ctx) => { /* ... */ }, }, // ... six more actions ], open: async (ctx) => { /* start server, return URL */ }, onClose: async (ctx) => { /* clean up */ }, }); Scenarios This Enables The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas supports four development scenarios that would be impossible with traditional tooling: 1. End-to-End Feature Design Tell the agent "Build an AI-powered code review system." Watch it decompose the requirement into five components, route tasks to specialist agents, execute the workflow, and validate the outputs, all visible in real time. Iterate by modifying constraints or components and re-running. 2. Live Agent Collaboration Observation See how agents hand off work to each other. The flow graph shows which agent produced what, which tasks are pending, and where bottlenecks form. This is the kind of observability you need when debugging multi-agent orchestration but would never expose in a production UI. 3. Fault Injection and Adaptation Testing Use inject_failure to force an agent into an error state. Watch how the system responds. Does the orchestrator recover? Do downstream tasks fail gracefully? This chaos-engineering approach, applied during development, visible in real time, catches integration failures before they reach production. 4. Validation-Driven Iteration Define test criteria, run validation, see which tests fail, update the system design, re-run. The validation panel isn't a separate CI pipeline, it's embedded in the development surface, creating a continuous feedback loop between design decisions and their measurable outcomes. Getting Started: Build Your Own Canvas Extension To create a Canvas extension in your own project: Read the SDK docs — Run extensions_manage({ operation: "guide" }) in GitHub Copilot CLI to get the canonical documentation paths. Scaffold — Run extensions_manage({ operation: "scaffold", kind: "canvas", name: "my-canvas", location: "project" }) to generate the boilerplate. Implement — Edit extension.mjs with your canvas logic: state model, actions, renderer HTML, and SSE updates. Reload — Run extensions_reload to activate your changes. Drive — Open with open_canvas , invoke actions with invoke_canvas_action , and iterate. The canvas extension lives in .github/extensions/your-canvas/extension.mjs for project-scoped extensions, or in your user extensions directory for personal use. No package.json needed, the github/copilot-sdk import is auto-resolved. Key Takeaways Canvas is a development runtime, not a UI framework. You don't build Canvas instead of your UI, you use Canvas to figure out, test, and evolve the UI and system before and during building it. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never expose. Agent observability, fault injection, live state mutation, validation feedback loops, these are development concerns, not user concerns. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System collaboration. Both the developer and the AI agent operate on the same surface, the same state, the same running system. It's Figma-like collaboration, but with AI agents, and things actually execute. Canvas turns debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous visual feedback loop. Instead of switching between an editor, a terminal, a test runner, and a monitoring dashboard, you have one surface where the system lives and evolves. Canvas extensions are lightweight. A single extension.mjs file, no dependencies, loopback HTTP server with SSE, the infrastructure gets out of the way so you can focus on the system you're building. The Bigger Picture Canvas redefines software development by shifting from writing static code to orchestrating living systems. Developers and AI co-create, observe, and evolve solutions in real time. Instead of building UIs for users, we build interactive environments for agents, turning debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous, visual feedback loop that accelerates innovation and brings ideas to production faster than ever. The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas we built here is one example. The pattern applies anywhere you're building agent-driven systems: AI orchestration, workflow automation, data pipelines, autonomous services. Anywhere you need to see, steer, and validate a complex system as it runs, that's where Canvas belongs. Resources copilot-canvas-runtime — this repository: the Multi-Agent Dev Canvas extension, scenario, and demo prompt GitHub Copilot Documentation — Official documentation for GitHub Copilot features Microsoft Foundry Documentation — Build and deploy AI agents with Microsoft Foundry
