Using Azure API Management with Azure Front Door for Global, Multi‑Region Architectures
Modern API‑driven applications demand global reach, high availability, and predictable latency. Azure provides two complementary services that help achieve this: Azure API Management (APIM) as the API gateway and Azure Front Door (AFD) as the global entry point and load balancer. Going over the available documentation available, my team and I found this article on how to front a single-region APIM with an Azure Front Door , but we wanted to extend this to a multi-region APIM as well. That led us to design the solution detailed in this article which explains how to configure multi‑regional, active‑active APIM behind Azure Front Door using Custom origins and regional gateway endpoints. (I have also covered topics like why organizations commonly pair APIM with Front Door, when to use internal vs. external APIM modes, etc. but main topic first! Scroll down to the bottom for more info). Configuring Multi‑Regional APIM with Azure Front Door WHAT TO KNOW: If using APIM Premium with multi‑region gateways, each region exposes its own regional gateway endpoint, formatted as: https://<service-name>-<region>-01.regional.azure-api.net Examples: https://mydemo-apim-westeurope-01.regional.azure-api.net https://mydemo-apim-eastus-01.regional.azure-api.net where 'mydemo' is the name of the APIM instance. You will use these regional endpoints and configure them as a separate origin in Azure Front Door—using the Custom origin type. Solution Architecture Azure Front Door Configuration Steps 1. Create an Origin Group Inside your Front Door profile, define a group (Settings -> Origin Groups - > Add -> Add an origin) that will contain all APIM regional gateways. See images below: 2. Add Each APIM Region as a Custom Origin Use the Custom origin type: Origin type: Custom Host name: Use the APIM regional endpoint Example: mydemo-apim-westeurope-01.regional.azure-api.net Origin host header: Same as the host name. Enable certificate subject name validation (Recommended when private link or TLS integrity is required.) Priority: Lower value = higher priority (for failover). Weight: Controls how traffic is distributed across equally prioritized origins. Status: Enable origin. And repeat the same steps for additional APIM regions giving them priority and weightage as you feel appropriate. How to Know Which Region is being Invoked To test this setup, create 2 Virtual Machines (VMs) in Azure - one for each region. For this guide, we chose to create the VMs in West Europe and East US. Open up a Command Prompt from the VM and do a curl on the sample Echo API that comes with every new APIM deployment: Example: curl -v "afd-blah.b01.azurefd.net/echo/resource?param1=sample" Your results should show the region being hit as shown below: How AFD Routes Traffic Across Multiple APIM Regions AFD evaluates origins in this order: Available instances — the Health Probe removes unhealthy origins Priority — selects highest‑priority available origins Latency — optionally selects lowest‑latency pool Weight — round‑robin distribution across selected origins Example When origins are configured as below: West Europe (priority 1, weight 1000) East US (priority 1, weight 500) Central US (priority 2, weight 1000) AFD will: Use West Europe + East US in a 1000:500 ratio. Only use Central US if both West Europe & East US become unavailable. For more information on this nice algorithm, see here: Traffic routing methods to origin - Azure Front Door | Microsoft Learn More Info (as promised) Why Use Azure API Management? Azure API Management is a fully managed service providing: 1. Centralized API Gateway Enforces policies such as authentication, rate limiting, transformations, and caching. Acts as a single façade for backend services, enabling modernization without breaking existing clients. 2. Security & Governance Integrates with Azure AD, OAuth2, and mTLS (mutual TLS). Provides threat protection and schema validation. 3. Developer Ecosystem Developer portal, API documentation, testing console, versioning, and releases. 4. Multi‑Region Gateways (Premium Tier) Allows deployment of additional regional gateways for active‑active, low‑latency global experiences. APIM Deployment Modes: Internal vs. External External Mode The APIM gateway is reachable publicly over the internet. Common when: Exposing APIs to partners, mobile apps, or public clients. You can easily front this with an Azure Front Door for reasons listed in the next section. Internal Mode APIM gateway is deployed inside a VNet, accessible only privately. Used when: APIs must stay private to an enterprise network. Only internal consumers/VPN/VNet peered systems need access. To make your APIM publicly accessible, you need to front it with both an Application Gateway and an Azure Front Door because: Azure Front Door (AFD) cannot directly reach an internal‑mode APIM because AFD requires a publicly routable origin. Application Gateway is a Layer‑7 reverse proxy that can expose a public frontend while still reaching internal private backends (like APIM gateway). [Ref] But Why Put Azure Front Door in Front of API Management? Azure Front Door provides capabilities that APIM alone does not offer: 1. Global Load Balancing As discussed above. 2. Edge Security Web Application Firewall, TLS termination at the edge, DDoS absorption. Reduces load on API gateways. 3. Faster Global Performance Anycast network and global POPs reduce round‑trip latency before requests hit APIM. A POP (Point of Presence) is an Azure Front Door edge location—a physical site in Microsoft’s global network where incoming user traffic first lands. Azure Front Door uses numerous global and local POPs strategically placed close to end‑users (both enterprise and consumer) to improve performance. Anycast is a networking protocol Azure Front Door uses to improve global connectivity. Ref: Traffic acceleration - Azure Front Door | Microsoft Learn 4. Unified Global Endpoint A single public endpoint (e.g., https://api.contoso.com) that intelligently distributes traffic across multiple APIM regions. With all of the above features, it is best to pair API Management with a Front Door, especially when dealing with multi-region architectures. Credits: Junee Singh, Senior Solution Engineer at Microsoft Isiah Hudson, Senior Solution Engineer at MicrosoftUpcoming webinar: Maximize the Cost Efficiency of AI Agents on Azure
AI agents are quickly becoming central to how organizations automate work, engage customers, and unlock new insights. But as adoption accelerates, so do questions about cost, ROI, and long-term sustainability. That’s exactly what the Maximize the Cost Efficiency of AI Agents on Azure webinar is designed to address. The webinar will provide practical guidance on building and scaling AI agents on Azure with financial discipline in mind. Rather than focusing only on technology, the session helps learners connect AI design decisions to real business outcomes—covering everything from identifying high-impact use cases and understanding cost drivers to forecasting ROI. Whether you’re just starting your AI journey or expanding AI agents across the enterprise, the session will equip you with strategies to make informed, cost-conscious decisions at every stage—from architecture and model selection to ongoing optimization and governance. Who should attend? If you are in one of these roles and are a decision maker or can influence decision makers in AI decisions or need to show ROI metrics on AI, this session is for you. Developer Administrator Solution Architect AI Engineer Business Analyst Business User Technology Manager Why attending the webinar? In the webinar, you’ll hear how to translate theory into real-world scenarios, walk through common cost pitfalls, and show how organizations are applying these principles in practice. Most importantly, the webinar helps you connect the dots faster, turning what you’ve learned into actionable insights you can apply immediately, ask questions live, and gain clarity on how to maximize ROI while scaling AI responsibly. If you care about building AI agents that are not only innovative but also efficient, governable, and financially sustainable, this training—and this webinar that complements it—are well worth your time. Register for the free webinar today for the event on March 5, 2026, 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Who will speak at the webinar? Your speakers will be: Carlotta Castelluccio: Carlotta is a Senior AI Advocate with the mission of helping every developer to succeed with AI, by building innovative solutions responsibly. To achieve this goal, she develops technical content, and she hosts skilling sessions, enabling her audience to take the most out of AI technologies and to have an impact on Microsoft AI products’ roadmap. Nitya Narasimhan: Nitya is a PhD and Polyglot with 25+ years of software research & development experience spanning mobile, web, cloud and AI. She is an innovator (12+ patents), a visual storyteller (@sketchtedocs), and an experienced community builder in the Greater New York area. As a senior AI Advocate on the Core AI Developer Relations team, she acts as "developer 0" for the Microsoft Foundry platform, providing product feedback and empowering AI developers to build trustworthy AI solutions with code samples, open-source curricula and content-initiatives like Model Mondays. Prior to joining Microsoft, she spent a decade in Motorola Labs working on ubiquitous & mobile computing research, founded Google Developer Groups in New York, and consulted for startups building real-time experiences for enterprise. Her current interests span Model understanding & customization, E2E Observability & Safety, and agentic AI workflows for maintainable software. Moderator Lee Stott is a Principal Cloud Advocate at Microsoft, working in the Core AI Developer Relations Team. He helps developers and organizations build responsibly with AI and cloud technologies through open-source projects, technical guidance, and global developer programs. Based in the UK, Lee brings deep hands-on experience across AI, Azure, and developer tooling. .Industry-Wide Certificate Changes Impacting Azure App Service Certificates
Executive Summary In early 2026, industry-wide changes mandated by browser applications and the CA/B Forum will affect both how TLS certificates are issued as well as their validity period. The CA/B Forum is a vendor body that establishes standards for securing websites and online communications through SSL/TLS certificates. Azure App Service is aligning with these standards for both App Service Managed Certificates (ASMC, free, DigiCert-issued) and App Service Certificates (ASC, paid, GoDaddy-issued). Most customers will experience no disruption. Action is required only if you pin certificates or use them for client authentication (mTLS). Update: February 17, 2026 We’ve published new Microsoft Learn documentation, Industry-wide certificate changes impacting Azure App Service , which provides more detailed guidance on these compliance-driven changes. The documentation also includes additional information not previously covered in this blog, such as updates to domain validation reuse, along with an expanding FAQ section. The Microsoft Learn documentation now represents the most complete and up-to-date overview of these changes. Going forward, any new details or clarifications will be published there, and we recommend bookmarking the documentation for the latest guidance. Who Should Read This? App Service administrators Security and compliance teams Anyone responsible for certificate management or application security Quick Reference: What’s Changing & What To Do Topic ASMC (Managed, free) ASC (GoDaddy, paid) Required Action New Cert Chain New chain (no action unless pinned) New chain (no action unless pinned) Remove certificate pinning Client Auth EKU Not supported (no action unless cert is used for mTLS) Not supported (no action unless cert is used for mTLS) Transition from mTLS Validity No change (already compliant) Two overlapping certs issued for the full year None (automated) If you do not pin certificates or use them for mTLS, no action is required. Timeline of Key Dates Date Change Action Required Mid-Jan 2026 and after ASMC migrates to new chain ASMC stops supporting client auth EKU Remove certificate pinning if used Transition to alternative authentication if the certificate is used for mTLS Mar 2026 and after ASC validity shortened ASC migrates to new chain ASC stops supporting client auth EKU Remove certificate pinning if used Transition to alternative authentication if the certificate is used for mTLS Actions Checklist For All Users Review your use of App Service certificates. If you do not pin these certificates and do not use them for mTLS, no action is required. If You Pin Certificates (ASMC or ASC) Remove all certificate or chain pinning before their respective key change dates to avoid service disruption. See Best Practices: Certificate Pinning. If You Use Certificates for Client Authentication (mTLS) Switch to an alternative authentication method before their respective key change dates to avoid service disruption, as client authentication EKU will no longer be supported for these certificates. See Sunsetting the client authentication EKU from DigiCert public TLS certificates. See Set Up TLS Mutual Authentication - Azure App Service Details & Rationale Why Are These Changes Happening? These updates are required by major browser programs (e.g., Chrome) and apply to all public CAs. They are designed to enhance security and compliance across the industry. Azure App Service is automating updates to minimize customer impact. What’s Changing? New Certificate Chain Certificates will be issued from a new chain to maintain browser trust. Impact: Remove any certificate pinning to avoid disruption. Removal of Client Authentication EKU Newly issued certificates will not support client authentication EKU. This change aligns with Google Chrome’s root program requirements to enhance security. Impact: If you use these certificates for mTLS, transition to an alternate authentication method. Shortening of Certificate Validity Certificate validity is now limited to a maximum of 200 days. Impact: ASMC is already compliant; ASC will automatically issue two overlapping certificates to cover one year. No billing impact. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Will I lose coverage due to shorter validity? No. For App Service Certificate, App Service will issue two certificates to span the full year you purchased. Is this unique to DigiCert and GoDaddy? No. This is an industry-wide change. Do these changes impact certificates from other CAs? Yes. These changes are an industry-wide change. We recommend you reach out to your certificates’ CA for more information. Do I need to act today? If you do not pin or use these certs for mTLS, no action is required. Glossary ASMC: App Service Managed Certificate (free, DigiCert-issued) ASC: App Service Certificate (paid, GoDaddy-issued) EKU: Extended Key Usage mTLS: Mutual TLS (client certificate authentication) CA/B Forum: Certification Authority/Browser Forum Additional Resources Changes to the Managed TLS Feature Set Up TLS Mutual Authentication Azure App Service Best Practices – Certificate pinning DigiCert Root and Intermediate CA Certificate Updates 2023 Sunsetting the client authentication EKU from DigiCert public TLS certificates Feedback & Support If you have questions or need help, please visit our official support channels or the Microsoft Q&A, where our team and the community can assist you.MCP-Driven Azure SRE for Databricks
Azure SRE Agent is an AI-powered operations assistant built for incident response and governance. MCP (Model Context Protocol) is the standard interface it uses to connect to external systems and tools. Azure SRE Agent integrates with Azure Databricks through the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to provide: Proactive Compliance - Automated best practice validation Reactive Troubleshooting - Root cause analysis and remediation for job failures This post demonstrates both capabilities with real examples. Architecture The Azure SRE Agent orchestrates Ops Skills and Knowledge Base prompts, then calls the Databricks MCP server over HTTPS. The MCP server translates those requests into Databricks REST API calls, returns structured results, and the agent composes findings, evidence, and remediation. End-to-end, this yields a single loop: intent -> MCP tool calls -> Databricks state -> grounded response. Deployment The MCP server runs as a containerized FastMCP application on Azure Container Apps, fronted by HTTPS and configured with Databricks workspace connection settings. It exposes a tool catalog that the agent invokes through MCP, while the container handles authentication and REST API calls to Databricks. 👉 For deployment instructions, see the GitHub repository. Getting Started Deploy the MCP Server: Follow the quickstart guide to deploy to Azure Container Apps (~30 min) Configure Azure SRE Agent: Create MCP connector with streamable-http transport Upload Knowledge Base from Builder > Knowledge Base using the Best Practices doc: AZURE_DATABRICKS_BEST_PRACTICES.md Benefit: Gives the agent authoritative compliance criteria and remediation commands. Create Ops Skill from Builder > Subagent Builder > Create skill and drop the Ops Skill doc: DATABRICKS_OPS_RUNBOOK_SKILL.md Benefit: Adds incident timelines, runbooks, and escalation triggers to responses. Deploy the subagent YAML: Databricks_MCP_Agent.yaml Benefit: Wires the MCP connector, Knowledge Base, and Ops Skill into one agent for proactive and reactive workflows. Integrate with Alerting: Connect PagerDuty/ServiceNow webhooks Enable auto-remediation for common issues Part 1: Proactive Compliance Use Case: Best Practice Validation Prompt: @Databricks_MCP_Agent: Validate the Databricks workspace for best practices compliance and provide a summary, detailed findings, and concrete remediation steps. What the Agent Does: Calls MCP tools to gather current state: list_clusters() - Audit compute configurations list_catalogs() - Check Unity Catalog setup list_jobs() - Review job configurations execute_sql() - Query governance policies Cross-references findings with Knowledge Base (best practices document) Generates prioritized compliance report Expected Output: Benefits: Time Savings: 5 minutes vs. 2-3 hours manual review Consistency: Same validation criteria across all workspaces Actionable: Specific remediation steps with code examples Part 2: Reactive Incident Response Example 1: Job Failure - Non-Zero Exit Code Scenario: Job job_exceptioning_out fails repeatedly due to notebook code errors. Prompt: Agent Investigation - Calls MCP Tools: get_job() - Retrieves job definition list_job_runs() - Gets recent run history (4 failed runs) get_run_output() - Analyzes error logs Root Cause Analysis: Expected Outcome: Root Cause Identified: sys.exit(1) in notebook code Evidence Provided: Job ID, run history, code excerpt, settings Confidence: HIGH (explicit failing code present) Remediation: Fix code + add retry policy Resolution Time: 3-5 minutes (vs. 30-45 minutes manual investigation) Example 2: Job Failure - Task Notebook Exception Scenario: Job hourly-data-sync fails repeatedly due to exception in task notebook. Prompt: Agent Investigation - Calls MCP Tools: get_job() - Job definition and task configuration list_job_runs() - Recent runs show "TERMINATED with TIMEOUT" execute_sql() - Queries notebook metadata Root Cause Analysis: Expected Outcome: Root Cause Identified: Exception at line 7 - null partition detected Evidence: Notebook path, code excerpt (lines 5-7), run history (7 consecutive failures) Confidence: HIGH (explicit failing code + TIMEOUT/queue issues) Remediation: Fix exception handling + add retry policy Resolution Time: 5-8 minutes (vs. 45+ minutes manual log analysis) Key Benefits Proactive Governance ✅ Continuous compliance monitoring ✅ Automated best practice validation ✅ 95% reduction in manual review time Reactive Incident Response 🚨 Automated root cause analysis ⚡ 80-95% reduction in MTTR 🧠 Context-aware remediation recommendations 📊 Evidence-based troubleshooting Operational Impact Metric Before After Improvement Compliance review time 2-3 hours 5 minutes 95% Job failure investigation 30-45 min 3-8 min 85% On-call alerts requiring intervention 4-6 per shift 1-2 per shift 70% Conclusion Azure SRE Agent transforms Databricks operations by combining proactive governance with reactive troubleshooting. The MCP integration provides: Comprehensive visibility into workspace health Automated compliance monitoring and validation Intelligent incident response with root cause analysis Self-healing capabilities for common failures Result: Teams spend less time firefighting and more time building. Resources 📘 Deployment Guide 🤖 Subagent Configuration 📋 Best Practices Document 🧰 Ops Skill Runbook 🔧 Validation Script 📖 Azure SRE Agent Documentation 📰 Azure SRE Agent Blogs 📜 MCP Specification Questions? Open an issue on GitHub or reach out to the Azure SRE team.Building Interactive Agent UIs with AG-UI and Microsoft Agent Framework
Introduction Picture this: You've built an AI agent that analyzes financial data. A user uploads a quarterly report and asks: "What are the top three expense categories?" Behind the scenes, your agent parses the spreadsheet, aggregates thousands of rows, and generates visualizations. All in 20 seconds. But the user? They see a loading spinner. Nothing else. No "reading file" message, no "analyzing data" indicator, no hint that progress is being made. They start wondering: Is it frozen? Should I refresh? The problem isn't the agent's capabilities - it's the communication gap between the agent running on the backend and the user interface. When agents perform multi-step reasoning, call external APIs, or execute complex tool chains, users deserve to see what's happening. They need streaming updates, intermediate results, and transparent progress indicators. Yet most agent frameworks force developers to choose between simple request/response patterns or building custom solutions to stream updates to their UIs. This is where AG-UI comes in. AG-UI is a fairly new event-based protocol that standardizes how agents communicate with user interfaces. Instead of every framework and development team inventing their own streaming solution, AG-UI provides a shared vocabulary of structured events that work consistently across different agent implementations. When an agent starts processing, calls a tool, generates text, or encounters an error, the UI receives explicit, typed events in real time. The beauty of AG-UI is its framework-agnostic design. While this blog post demonstrates integration with Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF), the same AG-UI protocol works with LangGraph, CrewAI, or any other compliant framework. Write your UI code once, and it works with any AG-UI-compliant backend. (Note: MAF supports both Python and .NET - this blog post focuses on the Python implementation.) TL;DR The Problem: Users don't get real-time updates while AI agents work behind the scenes - no progress indicators, no transparency into tool calls, and no insight into what's happening. The Solution: AG-UI is an open, event-based protocol that standardizes real-time communication between AI agents and user interfaces. Instead of each development team and framework inventing custom streaming solutions, AG-UI provides a shared vocabulary of structured events (like TOOL_CALL_START, TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT, RUN_FINISHED) that work across any compliant framework. Key Benefits: Framework-agnostic - Write UI code once, works with LangGraph, Microsoft Agent Framework, CrewAI, and more Real-time observability - See exactly what your agent is doing as it happens Server-Sent Events - Built on standard HTTP for universal compatibility Protocol-managed state - No manual conversation history tracking In This Post: You'll learn why AG-UI exists, how it works, and build a complete working application using Microsoft Agent Framework with Python - from server setup to client implementation. What You'll Learn This blog post walks through: Why AG-UI exists - how agent-UI communication has evolved and what problems current approaches couldn't solve How the protocol works - the key design choices that make AG-UI simple, reliable, and framework-agnostic Protocol architecture - the generic components and how AG-UI integrates with agent frameworks Building an AG-UI application - a complete working example using Microsoft Agent Framework with server, client, and step-by-step setup Understanding events - what happens under the hood when your agent runs and how to observe it Thinking in events - how building with AG-UI differs from traditional APIs, and what benefits this brings Making the right choice - when AG-UI is the right fit for your project and when alternatives might be better Estimated reading time: 15 minutes Who this is for: Developers building AI agents who want to provide real-time feedback to users, and teams evaluating standardized approaches to agent-UI communication To appreciate why AG-UI matters, we need to understand the journey that led to its creation. Let's trace how agent-UI communication has evolved through three distinct phases. The Evolution of Agent-UI Communication AI agents have become more capable over time. As they evolved, the way they communicated with user interfaces had to evolve as well. Here's how this evolution unfolded. Phase 1: Simple Request/Response In the early days of AI agent development, the interaction model was straightforward: send a question, wait for an answer, display the result. This synchronous approach mirrored traditional API calls and worked fine for simple scenarios. # Simple, but limiting response = agent.run("What's the weather in Paris?") display(response) # User waits... and waits... Works for: Quick queries that complete in seconds, simple Q&A interactions where immediate feedback and interactivity aren't critical. Breaks down: When agents need to call multiple tools, perform multi-step reasoning, or process complex queries that take 30+ seconds. Users see nothing but a loading spinner, with no insight into what's happening or whether the agent is making progress. This creates a poor user experience and makes it impossible to show intermediate results or allow user intervention. Recognizing these limitations, development teams began experimenting with more sophisticated approaches. Phase 2: Custom Streaming Solutions As agents became more sophisticated, teams recognized the need for incremental feedback and interactivity. Rather than waiting for the complete response, they implemented custom streaming solutions to show partial results as they became available. # Every team invents their own format for chunk in agent.stream("What's the weather?"): display(chunk) # But what about tool calls? Errors? Progress? This was a step forward for building interactive agent UIs, but each team solved the problem differently. Also, different frameworks had incompatible approaches - some streamed only text tokens, others sent structured JSON, and most provided no visibility into critical events like tool calls or errors. The problem: No standardization across frameworks - client code that works with LangGraph won't work with Crew AI, requiring separate implementations for each agent backend Each implementation handles tool calls differently - some send nothing during tool execution, others send unstructured messages Complex state management - clients must track conversation history, manage reconnections, and handle edge cases manually The industry needed a better solution - a common protocol that could work across all frameworks while maintaining the benefits of streaming. Phase 3: Standardized Protocol (AG-UI) AG-UI emerged as a response to the fragmentation problem. Instead of each framework and development team inventing their own streaming solution, AG-UI provides a shared vocabulary of events that work consistently across different agent implementations. # Standardized events everyone understands async for event in agent.run_stream("What's the weather?"): if event.type == "TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT": display_text(event.delta) elif event.type == "TOOL_CALL_START": show_tool_indicator(event.tool_name) elif event.type == "TOOL_CALL_RESULT": show_tool_result(event.result) The key difference is structured observability. Rather than guessing what the agent is doing from unstructured text, clients receive explicit events for every stage of execution: when the agent starts, when it generates text, when it calls a tool, when that tool completes, and when the entire run finishes. What's different: A standardized vocabulary of event types, complete observability into agent execution, and framework-agnostic clients that work with any AG-UI-compliant backend. You write your UI code once, and it works whether the backend uses Microsoft Agent Framework, LangGraph, or any other framework that speaks AG-UI. Now that we've seen why AG-UI emerged and what problems it solves, let's examine the specific design decisions that make the protocol work. These choices weren't arbitrary - each one addresses concrete challenges in building reliable, observable agent-UI communication. The Design Decisions Behind AG-UI Why Server-Sent Events (SSE)? Aspect WebSockets SSE (AG-UI) Complexity Bidirectional Unidirectional (simpler) Firewall/Proxy Sometimes blocked Standard HTTP Reconnection Manual implementation Built-in browser support Use case Real-time games, chat Agent responses (one-way) For agent interactions, you typically only need server→client communication, making SSE a simpler choice. SSE solves the transport problem - how events travel from server to client. But once connected, how does the protocol handle conversation state across multiple interactions? Why Protocol-Managed Threads? # Without protocol threads (client manages): conversation_history = [] conversation_history.append({"role": "user", "content": message}) response = agent.complete(conversation_history) conversation_history.append({"role": "assistant", "content": response}) # Complex, error-prone, doesn't work with multiple clients # With AG-UI (protocol manages): thread = agent.get_new_thread() # Server creates and manages thread agent.run_stream(message, thread=thread) # Server maintains context # Simple, reliable, shareable across clients With transport and state management handled, the final piece is the actual messages flowing through the connection. What information should the protocol communicate, and how should it be structured? Why Standardized Event Types? Instead of parsing unstructured text, clients get typed events: RUN_STARTED - Agent begins (start loading UI) TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT - Text chunk (stream to user) TOOL_CALL_START - Tool invoked (show "searching...", "calculating...") TOOL_CALL_RESULT - Tool finished (show result, update UI) RUN_FINISHED - Complete (hide loading) This lets UIs react intelligently without custom parsing logic. Now that we understand the protocol's design choices, let's see how these pieces fit together in a complete system. Architecture Overview Here's how the components interact: The communication between these layers relies on a well-defined set of event types. Here are the core events that flow through the SSE connection: Core Event Types AG-UI provides a standardized set of event types to describe what's happening during an agent's execution: RUN_STARTED - agent begins execution TEXT_MESSAGE_START, TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT, TEXT_MESSAGE_END - streaming segments of text TOOL_CALL_START, TOOL_CALL_ARGS, TOOL_CALL_END, TOOL_CALL_RESULT - tool execution events RUN_FINISHED - agent has finished execution RUN_ERROR - error information This model lets the UI update as the agent runs, rather than waiting for the final response. The generic architecture above applies to any AG-UI implementation. Now let's see how this translates to Microsoft Agent Framework. AG-UI with Microsoft Agent Framework While AG-UI is framework-agnostic, this blog post demonstrates integration with Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) using Python. MAF is available in both Python and .NET, giving you flexibility to build AG-UI applications in your preferred language. Understanding how MAF implements the protocol will help you build your own applications or work with other compliant frameworks. Integration Architecture The Microsoft Agent Framework integration involves several specialized layers that handle protocol translation and execution orchestration: Understanding each layer: FastAPI Endpoint - Handles HTTP requests and establishes SSE connections for streaming AgentFrameworkAgent - Protocol wrapper that translates between AG-UI events and Agent Framework operations Orchestrators - Manage execution flow, coordinate tool calling sequences, and handle state transitions ChatAgent - Your agent implementation with instructions, tools, and business logic ChatClient - Interface to the underlying language model (Azure OpenAI, OpenAI, or other providers) The good news? When you call add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint, all the middleware layers are configured automatically. You simply provide your ChatAgent, and the integration handles protocol translation, event streaming, and state management behind the scenes. Now that we understand both the protocol architecture and the Microsoft Agent Framework integration, let's build a working application. Hands-On: Building Your First AG-UI Application This section demonstrates how to build an AG-UI server and client using Microsoft Agent Framework and FastAPI. Prerequisites Before building your first AG-UI application, ensure you have: Python 3.10 or later installed Basic understanding of async/await patterns in Python Azure CLI installed and authenticated (az login) Azure OpenAI service endpoint and deployment configured (setup guide) Cognitive Services OpenAI Contributor role for your Azure OpenAI resource You'll also need to install the AG-UI integration package: pip install agent-framework-ag-ui --pre This automatically installs agent-framework-core, fastapi, and uvicorn as dependencies. With your environment configured, let's create the server that will host your agent and expose it via the AG-UI protocol. Building the Server Let's create a FastAPI server that hosts an AI agent and exposes it via AG-UI: # server.py import os from typing import Annotated from dotenv import load_dotenv from fastapi import FastAPI from pydantic import Field from agent_framework import ChatAgent, ai_function from agent_framework.azure import AzureOpenAIChatClient from agent_framework_ag_ui import add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint from azure.identity import DefaultAzureCredential # Load environment variables from .env file load_dotenv() # Validate environment configuration openai_endpoint = os.getenv("AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT") model_deployment = os.getenv("AZURE_OPENAI_DEPLOYMENT_NAME") if not openai_endpoint: raise RuntimeError("Missing required environment variable: AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT") if not model_deployment: raise RuntimeError("Missing required environment variable: AZURE_OPENAI_DEPLOYMENT_NAME") # Define tools the agent can use @ai_function def get_order_status( order_id: Annotated[str, Field(description="The order ID to look up (e.g., ORD-001)")] ) -> dict: """Look up the status of a customer order. Returns order status, tracking number, and estimated delivery date. """ # Simulated order lookup orders = { "ORD-001": {"status": "shipped", "tracking": "1Z999AA1", "eta": "Jan 25, 2026"}, "ORD-002": {"status": "processing", "tracking": None, "eta": "Jan 23, 2026"}, "ORD-003": {"status": "delivered", "tracking": "1Z999AA3", "eta": "Delivered Jan 20"}, } return orders.get(order_id, {"status": "not_found", "message": "Order not found"}) # Initialize Azure OpenAI client chat_client = AzureOpenAIChatClient( credential=DefaultAzureCredential(), endpoint=openai_endpoint, deployment_name=model_deployment, ) # Configure the agent with custom instructions and tools agent = ChatAgent( name="CustomerSupportAgent", instructions="""You are a helpful customer support assistant. You have access to a get_order_status tool that can look up order information. IMPORTANT: When a user mentions an order ID (like ORD-001, ORD-002, etc.), you MUST call the get_order_status tool to retrieve the actual order details. Do NOT make up or guess order information. After calling get_order_status, provide the actual results to the user in a friendly format.""", chat_client=chat_client, tools=[get_order_status], ) # Initialize FastAPI application app = FastAPI( title="AG-UI Customer Support Server", description="Interactive AI agent server using AG-UI protocol with tool calling" ) # Mount the AG-UI endpoint add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint(app, agent, path="/chat") def main(): """Entry point for the AG-UI server.""" import uvicorn print("Starting AG-UI server on http://localhost:8000") uvicorn.run(app, host="0.0.0.0", port=8000, log_level="info") # Run the application if __name__ == "__main__": main() What's happening here: We define a tool: get_order_status with the AI_function decorator Use Annotated and Field for parameter descriptions to help the agent understand when and how to use the tool We create an Azure OpenAI chat client with credential authentication The ChatAgent is configured with domain-specific instructions and the tools parameter add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint automatically handles SSE streaming and tool execution The server exposes the agent at the /chat endpoint Note: This example uses Azure OpenAI, but AG-UI works with any chat model. You can also integrate with Azure AI Foundry's model catalog or use other LLM providers. Tool calling is supported by most modern LLMs including GPT-4, GPT-4o, and Claude models. To run this server: # Set your Azure OpenAI credentials export AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT="https://your-resource.openai.azure.com/" export AZURE_OPENAI_DEPLOYMENT_NAME="gpt-4o" # Start the server python server.py With your server running and exposing the AG-UI endpoint, the next step is building a client that can connect and consume the event stream. Streaming Results to Clients With the server running, clients can connect and stream events as the agent processes requests. Here's a Python client that demonstrates the streaming capabilities: # client.py import asyncio import os from dotenv import load_dotenv from agent_framework import ChatAgent, FunctionCallContent, FunctionResultContent from agent_framework_ag_ui import AGUIChatClient # Load environment variables from .env file load_dotenv() async def interactive_chat(): """Interactive chat session with streaming responses.""" # Connect to the AG-UI server base_url = os.getenv("AGUI_SERVER_URL", "http://localhost:8000/chat") print(f"Connecting to: {base_url}\n") # Initialize the AG-UI client client = AGUIChatClient(endpoint=base_url) # Create a local agent representation agent = ChatAgent(chat_client=client) # Start a new conversation thread conversation_thread = agent.get_new_thread() print("Chat started! Type 'exit' or 'quit' to end the session.\n") try: while True: # Collect user input user_message = input("You: ") # Handle empty input if not user_message.strip(): print("Please enter a message.\n") continue # Check for exit commands if user_message.lower() in ["exit", "quit", "bye"]: print("\nGoodbye!") break # Stream the agent's response print("Agent: ", end="", flush=True) # Track tool calls to avoid duplicate prints seen_tools = set() async for update in agent.run_stream(user_message, thread=conversation_thread): # Display text content if update.text: print(update.text, end="", flush=True) # Display tool calls and results for content in update.contents: if isinstance(content, FunctionCallContent): # Only print each tool call once if content.call_id not in seen_tools: seen_tools.add(content.call_id) print(f"\n[Calling tool: {content.name}]", flush=True) elif isinstance(content, FunctionResultContent): # Only print each result once result_id = f"result_{content.call_id}" if result_id not in seen_tools: seen_tools.add(result_id) result_text = content.result if isinstance(content.result, str) else str(content.result) print(f"[Tool result: {result_text}]", flush=True) print("\n") # New line after response completes except KeyboardInterrupt: print("\n\nChat interrupted by user.") except ConnectionError as e: print(f"\nConnection error: {e}") print("Make sure the server is running.") except Exception as e: print(f"\nUnexpected error: {e}") def main(): """Entry point for the AG-UI client.""" asyncio.run(interactive_chat()) if __name__ == "__main__": main() Key features: The client connects to the AG-UI endpoint using AGUIChatClient with the endpoint parameter run_stream() yields updates containing text and content as they arrive Tool calls are detected using FunctionCallContent and displayed with [Calling tool: ...] Tool results are detected using FunctionResultContent and displayed with [Tool result: ...] Deduplication logic (seen_tools set) prevents printing the same tool call multiple times as it streams Thread management maintains conversation context across messages Graceful error handling for connection issues To use the client: # Optional: specify custom server URL export AGUI_SERVER_URL="http://localhost:8000/chat" # Start the interactive chat python client.py Example Session: Connecting to: http://localhost:8000/chat Chat started! Type 'exit' or 'quit' to end the session. You: What's the status of order ORD-001? Agent: [Calling tool: get_order_status] [Tool result: {"status": "shipped", "tracking": "1Z999AA1", "eta": "Jan 25, 2026"}] Your order ORD-001 has been shipped! - Tracking Number: 1Z999AA1 - Estimated Delivery Date: January 25, 2026 You can use the tracking number to monitor the delivery progress. You: Can you check ORD-002? Agent: [Calling tool: get_order_status] [Tool result: {"status": "processing", "tracking": null, "eta": "Jan 23, 2026"}] Your order ORD-002 is currently being processed. - Status: Processing - Estimated Delivery: January 23, 2026 Your order should ship soon, and you'll receive a tracking number once it's on the way. You: exit Goodbye! The client we just built handles events at a high level, abstracting away the details. But what's actually flowing through that SSE connection? Let's peek under the hood. Event Types You'll See As the server streams back responses, clients receive a series of structured events. If you were to observe the raw SSE stream (e.g., using curl), you'd see events like: curl -N http://localhost:8000/chat \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -H "Accept: text/event-stream" \ -d '{"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "What'\''s the status of order ORD-001?"}]}' Sample event stream (with tool calling): data: {"type":"RUN_STARTED","threadId":"eb4d9850-14ef-446c-af4b-23037acda9e8","runId":"chatcmpl-xyz"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_START","messageId":"e8648880-a9ff-4178-a17d-4a6d3ec3d39c","role":"assistant"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_START","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","toolCallName":"get_order_status","parentMessageId":"e8648880-a9ff-4178-a17d-4a6d3ec3d39c"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"{\""} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"order"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"_id"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"\":\""} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"ORD"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"-"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"001"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"\"}"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_END","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_RESULT","messageId":"f048cb0a-a049-4a51-9403-a05e4820438a","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","content":"{\"status\": \"shipped\", \"tracking\": \"1Z999AA1\", \"eta\": \"Jan 25, 2026\"}","role":"tool"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_START","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","role":"assistant"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"Your"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" order"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" ORD"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"-"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"001"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" has"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" been"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" shipped"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"!"} ... (additional TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT events streaming the response) ... data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_END","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf"} data: {"type":"RUN_FINISHED","threadId":"eb4d9850-14ef-446c-af4b-23037acda9e8","runId":"chatcmpl-xyz"} Understanding the flow: RUN_STARTED - Agent begins processing the request TEXT_MESSAGE_START - First message starts (will contain tool calls) TOOL_CALL_START - Agent invokes the get_order_status tool Multiple TOOL_CALL_ARGS events - Arguments stream incrementally as JSON chunks ({"order_id":"ORD-001"}) TOOL_CALL_END - Tool invocation structure complete TOOL_CALL_RESULT - Tool execution finished with result data TEXT_MESSAGE_START - Second message starts (the final response) Multiple TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT events - Response text streams word-by-word TEXT_MESSAGE_END - Response message complete RUN_FINISHED - Entire run completed successfully This granular event model enables rich UI experiences - showing tool execution indicators ("Searching...", "Calculating..."), displaying intermediate results, and providing complete transparency into the agent's reasoning process. Seeing the raw events helps, but truly working with AG-UI requires a shift in how you think about agent interactions. Let's explore this conceptual change. The Mental Model Shift Traditional API Thinking # Imperative: Call and wait response = agent.run("What's 2+2?") print(response) # "The answer is 4" Mental model: Function call with return value AG-UI Thinking # Reactive: Subscribe to events async for event in agent.run_stream("What's 2+2?"): match event.type: case "RUN_STARTED": show_loading() case "TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT": display_chunk(event.delta) case "RUN_FINISHED": hide_loading() Mental model: Observable stream of events This shift feels similar to: Moving from synchronous to async code Moving from REST to event-driven architecture Moving from polling to pub/sub This mental shift isn't just philosophical - it unlocks concrete benefits that weren't possible with request/response patterns. What You Gain Observability # You can SEE what the agent is doing TOOL_CALL_START: "get_order_status" TOOL_CALL_ARGS: {"order_id": "ORD-001"} TOOL_CALL_RESULT: {"status": "shipped", "tracking": "1Z999AA1", "eta": "Jan 25, 2026"} TEXT_MESSAGE_START: "Your order ORD-001 has been shipped..." Interruptibility # Future: Cancel long-running operations async for event in agent.run_stream(query): if user_clicked_cancel: await agent.cancel(thread_id, run_id) break Transparency # Users see the reasoning process "Looking up order ORD-001..." "Order found: Status is 'shipped'" "Retrieving tracking information..." "Your order has been shipped with tracking number 1Z999AA1..." To put these benefits in context, here's how AG-UI compares to traditional approaches across key dimensions: AG-UI vs. Traditional Approaches Aspect Traditional REST Custom Streaming AG-UI Connection Model Request/Response Varies Server-Sent Events State Management Manual Manual Protocol-managed Tool Calling Invisible Custom format Standardized events Framework Varies Framework-locked Framework-agnostic Browser Support Universal Varies Universal Implementation Simple Complex Moderate Ecosystem N/A Isolated Growing You've now seen AG-UI's design principles, implementation details, and conceptual foundations. But the most important question remains: should you actually use it? Conclusion: Is AG-UI Right for Your Project? AG-UI represents a shift toward standardized, observable agent interactions. Before adopting it, understand where the protocol stands and whether it fits your needs. Protocol Maturity The protocol is stable enough for production use but still evolving: Ready now: Core specification stable, Microsoft Agent Framework integration available, FastAPI/Python implementation mature, basic streaming and threading work reliably. Choose AG-UI If You Building new agent projects - No legacy API to maintain, want future compatibility with emerging ecosystem Need streaming observability - Multi-step workflows where users benefit from seeing each stage of execution Want framework flexibility - Same client code works with any AG-UI-compliant backend Comfortable with evolving standards - Can adapt to protocol changes as it matures Stick with Alternatives If You Have working solutions - Custom streaming working well, migration cost not justified Need guaranteed stability - Mission-critical systems where breaking changes are unacceptable Build simple agents - Single-step request/response without tool calling or streaming needs Risk-averse environment - Large existing implementations where proven approaches are required Beyond individual project decisions, it's worth considering AG-UI's role in the broader ecosystem. The Bigger Picture While this blog post focused on Microsoft Agent Framework, AG-UI's true power lies in its broader mission: creating a common language for agent-UI communication across the entire ecosystem. As more frameworks adopt it, the real value emerges: write your UI once, work with any compliant agent framework. Think of it like GraphQL for APIs or OpenAPI for REST - a standardization layer that benefits the entire ecosystem. The protocol is young, but the problem it solves is real. Whether you adopt it now or wait for broader adoption, understanding AG-UI helps you make informed architectural decisions for your agent applications. Ready to dive deeper? Here are the official resources to continue your AG-UI journey. Resources AG-UI & Microsoft Agent Framework Getting Started with AG-UI (Microsoft Learn) - Official tutorial AG-UI Integration Overview - Architecture and concepts AG-UI Protocol Specification - Official protocol documentation Backend Tool Rendering - Adding function tools Security Considerations - Production security guidance Microsoft Agent Framework Documentation - Framework overview AG-UI Dojo Examples - Live demonstrations UI Components & Integration CopilotKit for Microsoft Agent Framework - React component library Community & Support Microsoft Q&A - Community support Agent Framework GitHub - Source code and issues Related Technologies Azure AI Foundry Documentation - Azure AI platform FastAPI Documentation - Web framework Server-Sent Events (SSE) Specification - Protocol standard This blog post introduces AG-UI with Microsoft Agent Framework, focusing on fundamental concepts and building your first interactive agent application.Azure WAF Compliance with MCP-Driven SRE Agent
Azure governance at scale is complex. Security teams manually review many resource types across multiple subscriptions. Finance can't track costs without tags. Compliance teams spend days cross-referencing WAF standards against actual infrastructure. And critical security gaps - like RDP open to 0.0.0.0/0 or customer-managed encryption disabled - slip through until discovered in audits. This workflow is broken. Enter the Azure SRE Agent: an AI-powered compliance engine that discovers all resources, assesses them against all 5 WAF pillars AND your organization's specific standards in minutes, then generates exact remediation commands with quantified impact. How it works: The agent leverages these capabilities to transform Azure governance: Autonomous Resource Discovery via MCP - Azure MCP (Model Context Protocol) server exposes Azure Resource Graph and ARM APIs as discoverable tools. The agent automatically inventories all resources across subscriptions with metadata (types, locations, tags, security settings) in seconds. Multi-Pillar WAF Assessment - For each discovered resource, the agent validates against all 5 WAF pillars (Reliability, Security, Cost Optimization, Operational Excellence, Performance) using Azure MCP tools, generating an assessment summary with pass/fail/partial/unknown counts. Org Best Practices Cross-Check - The agent references your organization's compliance standards (stored in knowledge base as org-practices.md) to escalate WAF findings into actionable org policies. A Security policy violation becomes a critical finding. A cost optimization recommendation becomes a warning. Automated Remediation Codegen - For every finding, the agent generates exact Azure CLI commands, Terraform snippets, and Portal steps with impact quantification (risk reduction, cost savings, compliance improvement). Architecture The Azure SRE Agent orchestrates WAF compliance checks by calling Azure MCP tools to discover and assess resources, then cross-references findings with organizational best practices from the knowledge base. End-to-end: subscription scope → resource discovery → 5-pillar assessment → org compliance → remediation commands. Deployment The Azure MCP server runs locally via Node.js in Stdio mode, communicating with the SRE Agent through standard input/output. Configured with Managed Identity credentials, it exposes Azure ARM and governance APIs as MPC tools. The agent uses this catalog plus the org practices knowledge base to validate compliance autonomously. Scheduling Options: Ad-hoc: Run on-demand via agent prompt Scheduled: Use Azure SRE Agent's built-in task scheduler (daily/weekly/monthly compliance scans) Event-driven: Trigger on resource group changes or policy violations Getting Started Configure Azure MCP Connector: Connection Type: Stdio (local process) Command: npx Arguments (in order): -y (auto-accept) azure/mcp (package name) server (run as server) start (start command) --mode (mode flag) all (enable all resources) Environment Variables: AZURE_CLIENT_ID: Your managed identity client ID AZURE_TOKEN_CREDENTIALS: managedidentitycredential Managed Identity: Select your managed identity from dropdown Configure Azure SRE Agent: Upload Knowledge Base from Builder > Knowledge Base using the org practices doc: org-practices.md Benefit: Agent validates Azure resources against both WAF standards AND your company-specific requirements Deploy the agent YAML: Azure_WAF_Compliance_Agent.yaml, attach the Azure MCP and associate agent with the KB article. Benefit: Autonomous resource discovery + 5-pillar assessment + org compliance in one execution Run Your First Validation: Prompt the agent with your subscription or resource group: Integrate with Operations: Schedule daily compliance scans via Azure SRE Agent's scheduled tasks Trigger assessments on resource deployments Export findings to Azure DevOps or ServiceNow for ticketing Autonomous Compliance Workflow Phase 1: Resource Discovery Agent Task: The agent automatically discovers all resources in the target resource group, including VMs, storage accounts, NSGs, Key Vaults, App Services, and more - no manual resource IDs needed. What the Agent Does: Calls Azure MCP tools in parallel: list_virtual_machines() - Inventory compute list_storage_accounts() - Inventory storage list_network_security_groups() - Inventory network security list_key_vaults() - Inventory secrets management list_web_apps() - Inventory App Services Additional resource type queries as needed Builds comprehensive resource inventory with metadata (types, locations, tags, configurations) Expected Output: Phase 2: Multi-Pillar WAF Assessment Agent Task: For each discovered resource, the agent validates against all 5 Azure Well-Architected Framework pillars using Azure MCP tools. What the Agent Does: Reliability Pillar: VM availability zones, backup configuration, health probes Storage redundancy (LRS vs GRS vs ZRS) App Service health checks and auto-healing Security Pillar: NSG rules: Check for 0.0.0.0/0 sources on SSH/RDP Key Vault: Secret expiration dates, soft delete, purge protection Storage: Public blob access, shared key access, HTTPS enforcement, TLS version App Service: HTTPS-only, managed identity, VNet integration Cost Optimization Pillar: VM right-sizing: CPU/memory utilization analysis Orphaned resources: Unattached disks, unused public IPs Resource tagging: cost-center, owner, environment tags Storage tiering opportunities Operational Excellence Pillar: Monitoring: Azure Monitor diagnostics enabled Logging: Log Analytics workspace integration IaC: Resource tags indicating Terraform/Bicep management Performance Pillar: VM series appropriateness for workload Storage account performance tier App Service plan scaling configuration Expected Output: Phase 3: Org Best Practices Cross-Check Agent Task: Cross-reference all WAF findings with organizational requirements from org-practices.md knowledge base. Escalate violations of company-specific standards. What the Agent Does: Reads org-practices.md from knowledge base For each WAF finding, checks if it intersects with org requirement Maps severity based on org standards: 🔴 Critical: NSG open to 0.0.0.0/0, Key Vault secrets expiring < 30 days, storage public access enabled 🟡 Warning: Missing required tags (cost-center, owner), idle VMs, orphaned disks 🔵 Info: Recommendations without org mandate Provides specific evidence and references to org-practices.md sections Expected Output: Phase 4: Remediation with Exact Commands Agent Task: Generate copy-paste CLI commands, Terraform snippets, and Portal steps for every gap. Quantify impact (cost savings, risk reduction). What the Agent Does: For each finding, generates precise fix commands Provides Azure CLI, PowerShell, or Terraform as appropriate Quantifies impact: cost reduction, security risk level, compliance improvement Expected Output: Remediation Roadmap Immediate (Deploy Today - Critical Risk): Enable TLS 1.2 minimum on SQL Server prod-sql-server-01 (2 min) Fix NSG "nsg-aks-nodes" - Remove RDP from 0.0.0.0/0 (5 min) Enable SQL Server Auditing (10 min) Enable RBAC on AKS Cluster (recreate cluster, ~20 min downtime) Enable Customer-Managed Encryption on diagstorage01 (15 min) Short-Term (Next 3 Days - High Risk): Install Azure Monitor VM extensions on ubuntu-prod-01 (10 min) Enable HTTPS-only on Function App data-processor-func (1 min) Enable Purge Protection on Key Vault kv-prod-01 (1 min) Deploy Azure Bastion for secure VM access (20 min) Enable AKS Calico network policies (10 min) Short-Term (1 Week - Medium Risk): Delete orphaned disk disk-unattached-03 ($48/month savings) Configure storage lifecycle policy on logsstorage01 ($120/month savings) Add monitoring to Function App data-processor-func Add required tags to VM ubuntu-prod-01 and others Add NSG to unprotected subnets in vnet-prod Medium-Term (2-4 Weeks - Low Risk): Implement automated secret rotation for Key Vault Configure Application Insights for all Function Apps Set up managed identity on win-dev-02 and other VMs Implement Azure Policy enforcement for ongoing compliance Long-Term (Ongoing - Preventive): Schedule weekly compliance scans via Azure Logic Apps Integrate findings with Azure DevOps for backlog tracking Implement GitOps for IaC enforcement (Terraform, Bicep) Train teams on security best practices and compliance requirements Real-World Results The assessment workflow discovered 8 critical findings and 11 warnings across SQL, AKS, Storage, VMs, and NSGs. Each came with remediation commands and prioritized timelines. Total time: 6 minutes. Manual review would take 4-6 hours. Key Benefits Autonomous Discovery & Assessment ✅ Zero manual resource inventory - agent discovers everything ✅ Multi-pillar WAF validation in one execution ✅ Org-specific compliance enforcement via knowledge base Risk & Cost Visibility 🔴 Immediate identification of critical security gaps (NSGs, secrets, public storage) 💰 Quantified cost savings from orphaned resources and idle VMs 📊 Evidence-based findings with direct references to org policies Actionable Remediation 🛠️ Copy-paste CLI commands and Terraform for every gap ⚡ Prioritized roadmap (immediate/short/medium/long-term) 📈 Impact quantification (risk reduction, cost savings, compliance %) Operational Impact Metric Before After Improvement WAF compliance review 4-6 hours manual 5-8 minutes autonomous 95% Critical security gap discovery 2-3 days Real-time Immediate Org policy violation tracking Manual spreadsheet Automated report 100% Orphaned resource cleanup Quarterly review Weekly automated scan 4x frequency Scheduling Compliance Scans Azure SRE Agent includes built-in task scheduling. From the Scheduled tasks menu, create a new task specifying: Frequency: Daily, Weekly, or Monthly Time: When to run scans Scope: Target resource group or subscription Autonomy: Autonomous (auto-remediate) or Review (approval required) The agent runs on schedule, discovers resources, assesses WAF compliance, and executes or flags remediation based on your settings. Conclusion Azure SRE Agent transforms Azure governance by combining autonomous resource discovery, multi-pillar WAF assessment, and organization-specific compliance enforcement. The MCP integration provides: Continuous compliance monitoring across all 5 WAF pillars Org best practices enforcement via knowledge base integration Automated remediation with exact CLI commands and impact quantification Flexible scheduling for ad-hoc, scheduled, or event-driven scans Result: Security teams maintain compliance effortlessly, finance tracks costs accurately, and platform teams remediate gaps with confidence. Resources 🤖 Agent Configuration YAML 📋 Org Best Practices 📖 Azure SRE Agent Documentation 📰 Azure SRE Agent Blogs 📜 MCP Specification 🏗️ Azure Well-Architected Framework Questions? Open an issue on GitHub or reach out to the Azure SRE team.From Local MCP Server to Hosted Web Agent: App Service Observability, Part 2
In Part 1, we introduced the App Service Observability MCP Server — a proof-of-concept that lets GitHub Copilot (and other AI assistants) query your App Service logs, analyze errors, and help debug issues through natural language. That version runs locally alongside your IDE, and it's great for individual developers who want to investigate their apps without leaving VS Code. A local MCP server is powerful, but it's personal. Your teammate has to clone the repo, configure their IDE, and run it themselves. What if your on-call engineer could just open a browser and start asking questions? What if your whole team had a shared observability assistant — no setup required? In this post, we'll show how we took the same set of MCP tools and wrapped them in a hosted web application — deployed to Azure App Service with a chat UI and a built-in Azure OpenAI agent. We'll cover what changed, what stayed the same, and why this pattern opens the door to far more than just a web app. Quick Recap: The Local MCP Server If you haven't read Part 1, here's the short version: We built an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that exposes ~15 observability tools for App Service — things like querying Log Analytics, fetching Kudu container logs, analyzing HTTP errors, correlating deployments with failures, and checking logging configurations. You point your AI assistant (GitHub Copilot, Claude, etc.) at the server, and it calls those tools on your behalf to answer questions about your apps. That version: Runs locally on your machine via node Uses stdio transport (your IDE spawns the process) Relies on your Azure credentials ( az login ) — the AI operates with your exact permissions Requires no additional Azure resources It works. It's fast. And for a developer investigating their own apps, it's the simplest path. This is still a perfectly valid way to use the project — nothing about the hosted version replaces it. The Problem: Sharing Is Hard The local MCP server has a limitation: it's tied to one developer's machine and IDE. In practice, this means: On-call engineers need to clone the repo and configure their environment before they can use it Team leads can't point someone at a URL and say "go investigate" Non-IDE users (PMs, support engineers) are left out entirely Consistent configuration (which subscription, which resource group) has to be managed per-person We wanted to keep the same tools and the same observability capabilities, but make them accessible to anyone with a browser. The Solution: Host It on App Service The answer turned out to be straightforward: deploy the MCP server itself to Azure App Service, give it a web frontend, and bring its own AI agent along for the ride. Here's what the hosted version adds on top of the local MCP server: Local MCP Server Hosted Web Agent How it works Runs locally, your IDE's AI calls the tools Deployed to Azure App Service with its own AI agent Interface VS Code, Claude Desktop, or any MCP client Browser-based chat UI Agent Your existing AI assistant (Copilot, Claude, etc.) Built-in Azure OpenAI (GPT-5-mini) Azure resources needed None beyond az login App Service, Azure OpenAI, VNet Best for Individual developers in their IDE Teams who want a shared, centralized tool Authentication Your local az login credentials Managed identity + Easy Auth (Entra ID) Deploy npm install && npm run build azd up The key insight: the MCP tools are identical. Both versions use the exact same set of observability tools — the only difference is who's calling them (your IDE's AI vs. the built-in Azure OpenAI agent) and where the server runs (your laptop vs. App Service). What We Built Architecture ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Web Browser │ │ React Chat UI — resource selectors, tool steps, markdown responses │ └──────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ HTTP (REST API) ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Azure App Service (Node.js 20) │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Express Server │ │ │ │ ├── /api/chat → Agent loop (OpenAI → tool calls → respond) │ │ │ │ ├── /api/set-context → Set target app for investigation │ │ │ │ ├── /api/resource-groups, /api/apps → Resource discovery │ │ │ │ ├── /mcp → MCP protocol endpoint (Streamable HTTP) │ │ │ │ └── / → Static SPA (React chat UI) │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ VNet Integration (snet-app) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌──────────────┐ ┌───────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ │ Azure OpenAI │ │ Log Analytics / │ │ ARM API / Kudu │ │ (GPT-5-mini) │ │ KQL Queries │ │ (app metadata, │ │ Private EP │ └───────────────────┘ │ container logs) │ └──────────────┘ └────────────────────┘ The Express server does double duty: it serves the React chat UI as static files and exposes the MCP endpoint for remote IDE connections. The agent loop is simple — when a user sends a message, the server calls Azure OpenAI, which may request tool calls, the server executes those tools, and the loop continues until the AI has a final answer. Demo The following screenshots show how this app can be used. The first screenshot shows what happens when you ask about a functioning app. You can see the agent made 5 tool calls and was able to give a thorough summary of the current app's status, recent deployments, as well as provide some recommendations for how to improve observability of the app itself. I expanded the tools section so you could see exactly what the agent was doing behind the scenes and get a sense of how it was thinking. At this point, you can proceed to ask more questions about your app if there were other pieces of information you wanted to pull from your logs. I then injected a fault into this app by initiating a deployment pointing to a config file that didn't actually exist. The goal here was to prove that the agent could correlate an application issue to a specific deployment event, something that currently involves manual effort and deep investigation into logs and source code. Having an agent that can do this for you in a matter of seconds saves so much time and effort that could be directed to more important activities and ensures that you find the issue the first time. A few minutes after initiating the bad deployment, I saw that my app was no longer responding. Rather than going to the logs and investigating myself, I asked the agent "I'm getting an application error now, what happened?" I obviously know what happened and what the source of the error was, but let's see if the agent can pick that up. The agent was able to see that something was wrong and then point me in the direction to address the issue. It ran a number of tool calls following our investigation steps called out in the skills file and was successfully able to identify the source of the error. And lastly, I wanted to confirm the error was associated with the recent deployment, something that our agent should be able to do because we built in the tools it needs to be able to corrleate these kinds of events with errors. I asked it directly and here was the response, exactly what I expected to see. Infrastructure (one command) Everything is defined in Bicep and deployed with the Azure Developer CLI: azd up This provisions: App Service Plan (P0v3) with App Service (Node.js 20 LTS, VNet-integrated) Azure OpenAI (GPT-5-mini, Global Standard) with a private endpoint and private DNS zone VNet (10.0.0.0/16) with dedicated subnets for the app and private endpoints Managed Identity with RBAC roles: Reader, Website Contributor, Log Analytics Reader, Cognitive Services OpenAI User No API keys anywhere. The App Service authenticates to Azure OpenAI over a private network using its managed identity. The Chat UI The web interface is designed to get out of the way and let you focus on investigating: Resource group and app dropdowns — Browse your subscription, pick the app you want to investigate Tool step visibility — A collapsible panel shows exactly which tools the agent called, what arguments it used, and how long each took Session management — Start fresh conversations, with confirmation dialogs when switching context mid-investigation Markdown responses — The agent's answers are rendered with full formatting, code blocks, and tables When you first open the app, it auto-discovers your subscription and populates the resource group dropdown. Select an app, hit "Tell me about this app," and the agent starts investigating. Security Since this app has subscription-wide read access to your App Services and Log Analytics workspaces, you should definitely enable authentication. After deploying, configure Easy Auth in the Azure Portal: Go to your App Service → Authentication Click Add identity provider → select Microsoft Entra ID Set Unauthenticated requests to "HTTP 401 Unauthorized" This ensures only authorized members of your organization can access the tool. The connection to Azure OpenAI is secured via a private endpoint — traffic never traverses the public internet. The app authenticates using its managed identity with the Cognitive Services OpenAI User role. What Stayed the Same This is the part worth emphasizing: the core tools didn't change at all. Whether you're using the local MCP server or the hosted web agent, you get the same 15 tools. The Agent Skill (SKILL.md) from Part 1 also carries over. The hosted agent has the same domain expertise for App Service debugging baked into its system prompt — the same debugging workflows, common error patterns, KQL templates, and SKU reference that make the local version effective. The Bigger Picture: It's Not Just a Web App Here's what makes this interesting beyond our specific implementation: the pattern is the point. We took a set of domain-specific tools (App Service observability), wrapped them in a standard protocol (MCP), and showed two ways to use them: Local MCP server → Your IDE's AI calls the tools Hosted web agent → A deployed app with its own AI calls the same tools But those are just two examples. The same tools could power: A Microsoft Teams bot — Your on-call channel gets an observability assistant that anyone can mention A Slack integration — Same idea, different platform A CLI agent — A terminal-based chat for engineers who live in the command line An automated monitor — An agent that periodically checks your apps and files alerts An Azure Portal extension — Observability chat embedded directly in the portal experience A mobile app — Check on your apps from your phone during an incident The MCP tools are the foundation. The agent and interface are just the delivery mechanism. Build whatever surface makes sense for your team. This is one of the core ideas behind MCP: write the tools once, use them everywhere. The protocol standardizes how AI assistants discover and call tools, so you're not locked into any single client or agent. Try It Yourself Both versions are open-source: Local MCP server (Part 1): github.com/seligj95/app-service-observability-agent Hosted web agent (Part 2): github.com/seligj95/app-service-observability-agent-hosted To deploy the hosted version: git clone https://github.com/seligj95/app-service-observability-agent-hosted.git cd app-service-observability-agent-hosted azd up To run the local version, see the Getting Started section in Part 1. What's Next? This is still a proof-of-concept, and we're continuing to explore how AI-powered observability can become a first-class part of the App Service platform. Some things we're thinking about: More tools — Resource health, autoscale history, certificate expiration, network diagnostics Multi-app investigations — Correlate issues across multiple apps in a resource group Proactive monitoring — Agents that watch your apps and alert you before users notice Deeper integration — What if every App Service came with a built-in observability endpoint? We'd love your feedback. Try it out, open an issue, or submit a PR if you have ideas for additional tools or debugging patterns. And if you build something interesting on top of these MCP tools — a Teams bot, a CLI agent, anything — we'd love to hear about it.Demystifying GitHub Copilot Security Controls: easing concerns for organizational adoption
At a recent developer conference, I delivered a session on Legacy Code Rescue using GitHub Copilot App Modernization. Throughout the day, conversations with developers revealed a clear divide: some have fully embraced Agentic AI in their daily coding, while others remain cautious. Often, this hesitation isn't due to reluctance but stems from organizational concerns around security and regulatory compliance. Having witnessed similar patterns during past technology shifts, I understand how these barriers can slow adoption. In this blog, I'll demystify the most common security concerns about GitHub Copilot and explain how its built-in features address them, empowering organizations to confidently modernize their development workflows. GitHub Copilot Model Training A common question I received at the conference was whether GitHub uses your code as training data for GitHub Copilot. I always direct customers to the GitHub Copilot Trust Center for clarity, but the answer is straightforward: “No. GitHub uses neither Copilot Business nor Enterprise data to train the GitHub model.” Notice this restriction also applies to third-party models as well (e.g. Anthropic, Google). GitHub Copilot Intellectual Property indemnification policy A frequent concern I hear is, since GitHub Copilot’s underlying models are trained on sources that include public code, it might simply “copy and paste” code from those sources. Let’s clarify how this actually works: Does GitHub Copilot “copy/paste”? “The AI models that create Copilot’s suggestions may be trained on public code, but do not contain any code. When they generate a suggestion, they are not “copying and pasting” from any codebase.” To provide an additional layer of protection, GitHub Copilot includes a “duplicate detection filter”. This feature helps prevent suggestions that closely match public code from being surfaced. (Note: This duplicate detection currently does not apply to the Copilot coding agent.) More importantly, customers are protected by an Intellectual Property indemnification policy. This means that if you receive an unmodified suggestion from GitHub Copilot and face a copyright claim as a result, Microsoft will defend you in court. GitHub Copilot Data Retention Another frequent question I hear concerns GitHub Copilot’s data retention policies. For organizations on GitHub Copilot Business and Enterprise plans, retention practices depend on how and where the service is accessed from: Access through IDE for Chat and Code Completions: Prompts and Suggestions: Not retained. User Engagement Data: Kept for two years. Feedback Data: Stored for as long as needed for its intended purpose. Other GitHub Copilot access and use: Prompts and Suggestions: Retained for 28 days. User Engagement Data: Kept for two years. Feedback Data: Stored for as long as needed for its intended purpose. For Copilot Coding Agent, session logs are retained for the life of the account in order to provide the service. Excluding content from GitHub Copilot To prevent GitHub Copilot from indexing sensitive files, you can configure content exclusions at the repository or organization level. In VS Code, use the .copilotignore file to exclude files client-side. Note that files listed in .gitignore are not indexed by default but may still be referenced if open or explicitly referenced (unless they’re excluded through .copilotignore or content exclusions). The life cycle of a GitHub Copilot code suggestion Here are the key protections at each stage of the life cycle of a GitHub Copilot code suggestion: In the IDE: Content exclusions prevent files, folders, or patterns from being included. GitHub proxy (pre-model safety): Prompts go through a GitHub proxy hosted in Microsoft Azure for pre-inference checks: screening for toxic or inappropriate language, relevance, and hacking attempts/jailbreak-style prompts before reaching the model. Model response: With the public code filter enabled, some suggestions are suppressed. The vulnerability protection feature blocks insecure coding patterns like hardcoded credentials or SQL injections in real time. Disable access to GitHub Copilot Free Due to the varying policies associated with GitHub Copilot Free, it is crucial for organizations to ensure it is disabled both in the IDE and on GitHub.com. Since not all IDEs currently offer a built-in option to disable Copilot Free, the most reliable method to prevent both accidental and intentional access is to implement firewall rule changes, as outlined in the official documentation. Agent Mode Allow List Accidental file system deletion by Agentic AI assistants can happen. With GitHub Copilot agent mode, the "Terminal auto approve” setting in VS Code can be used to prevent this. This setting can be managed centrally using a VS Code policy. MCP registry Organizations often want to restrict access to allow only trusted MCP servers. GitHub now offers an MCP registry feature for this purpose. This feature isn’t available in all IDEs and clients yet, but it's being developed. Compliance Certifications The GitHub Copilot Trust Center page lists GitHub Copilot's broad compliance credentials, surpassing many competitors in financial, security, privacy, cloud, and industry coverage. SOC 1 Type 2: Assurance over internal controls for financial reporting. SOC 2 Type 2: In-depth report covering Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy over time. SOC 3: General-use version of SOC 2 with broad executive-level assurance. ISO/IEC 27001:2013: Certification for a formal Information Security Management System (ISMS), based on risk management controls. CSA STAR Level 2: Includes a third-party attestation combining ISO 27001 or SOC 2 with additional cloud control matrix (CCM) requirements. TISAX: Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange, covering automotive-sector security standards. In summary, while the adoption of AI tools like GitHub Copilot in software development can raise important questions around security, privacy, and compliance, it’s clear that existing safeguards in place help address these concerns. By understanding the safeguards, configurable controls, and robust compliance certifications offered, organizations and developers alike can feel more confident in embracing GitHub Copilot to accelerate innovation while maintaining trust and peace of mind.An AI led SDLC: Building an End-to-End Agentic Software Development Lifecycle with Azure and GitHub.
This is due to the inevitable move towards fully agentic, end-to-end SDLCs. We may not yet be at a point where software engineers are managing fleets of agents creating the billion-dollar AI abstraction layer, but (as I will evidence in this article) we are certainly on the precipice of such a world. Before we dive into the reality of agentic development today, let me examine two very different modules from university and their relevance in an AI-first development environment. Manual Requirements Translation. At university I dedicated two whole years to a unit called “Systems Design”. This was one of my favourite units, primarily focused on requirements translation. Often, I would receive a scenario between “The Proprietor” and “The Proprietor’s wife”, who seemed to be in a never-ending cycle of new product ideas. These tasks would be analysed, broken down, manually refined, and then mapped to some kind of early-stage application architecture (potentially some pseudo-code and a UML diagram or two). The big intellectual effort in this exercise was taking human intention and turning it into something tangible to build from (BA’s). Today, by the time I have opened Notepad and started to decipher requirements, an agent can already have created a comprehensive list, a service blueprint, and a code scaffold to start the process (*cough* spec-kit *cough*). Manual debugging. Need I say any more? Old-school debugging with print()’s and breakpoints is dead. I spent countless hours learning to debug in a classroom and then later with my own software, stepping through execution line by line, reading through logs, and understanding what to look for; where correlation did and didn’t mean causation. I think back to my year at IBM as a fresh-faced intern in a cloud engineering team, where around 50% of my time was debugging different issues until it was sufficiently “narrowed down”, and then reading countless Stack Overflow posts figuring out the actual change I would need to make to a PowerShell script or Jenkins pipeline. Already in Azure, with the emergence of SRE agents, that debug process looks entirely different. The debug process for software even more so… #terminallastcommand WHY IS THIS NOT RUNNING? #terminallastcommand Review these logs and surface errors relating to XYZ. As I said: breakpoints are dead, for now at least. Caveat – Is this a good thing? One more deviation from the main core of the article if you would be so kind (if you are not as kind skip to the implementation walkthrough below). Is this actually a good thing? Is a software engineering degree now worthless? What if I love printf()? I don’t know is my answer today, at the start of 2026. Two things worry me: one theoretical and one very real. To start with the theoretical: today AI takes a significant amount of the “donkey work” away from developers. How does this impact cognitive load at both ends of the spectrum? The list that “donkey work” encapsulates is certainly growing. As a result, on one end of the spectrum humans are left with the complicated parts yet to be within an agent’s remit. This could have quite an impact on our ability to perform tasks. If we are constantly dealing with the complex and advanced, when do we have time to re-root ourselves in the foundations? Will we see an increase in developer burnout? How do technical people perform without the mundane or routine tasks? I often hear people who have been in the industry for years discuss how simple infrastructure, computing, development, etc. were 20 years ago, almost with a longing to return to a world where today’s zero trust, globally replicated architectures are a twinkle in an architect’s eye. Is constantly working on only the most complex problems a good thing? At the other end of the spectrum, what if the performance of AI tooling and agents outperforms our wildest expectations? Suddenly, AI tools and agents are picking up more and more of today’s complicated and advanced tasks. Will developers, architects, and organisations lose some ability to innovate? Fundamentally, we are not talking about artificial general intelligence when we say AI; we are talking about incredibly complex predictive models that can augment the existing ideas they are built upon but are not, in themselves, innovators. Put simply, in the words of Scott Hanselman: “Spicy auto-complete”. Does increased reliance on these agents in more and more of our business processes remove the opportunity for innovative ideas? For example, if agents were football managers, would we ever have graduated from Neil Warnock and Mick McCarthy football to Pep? Would every agent just augment a ‘lump it long and hope’ approach? We hear about learning loops, but can these learning loops evolve into “innovation loops?” Past the theoretical and the game of 20 questions, the very real concern I have is off the back of some data shared recently on Stack Overflow traffic. We can see in the diagram below that Stack Overflow traffic has dipped significantly since the release of GitHub Copilot in October 2021, and as the product has matured that trend has only accelerated. Data from 12 months ago suggests that Stack Overflow has lost 77% of new questions compared to 2022… Stack Overflow democratises access to problem-solving (I have to be careful not to talk in past tense here), but I will admit I cannot remember the last time I was reviewing Stack Overflow or furiously searching through solutions that are vaguely similar to my own issue. This causes some concern over the data available in the future to train models. Today, models can be grounded in real, tested scenarios built by developers in anger. What happens with this question drop when API schemas change, when the technology built for today is old and deprecated, and the dataset is stale and never returning to its peak? How do we mitigate this impact? There is potential for some closed-loop type continuous improvement in the future, but do we think this is a scalable solution? I am unsure. So, back to the question: “Is this a good thing?”. It’s great today; the long-term impacts are yet to be seen. If we think that AGI may never be achieved, or is at least a very distant horizon, then understanding the foundations of your technical discipline is still incredibly important. Developers will not only be the managers of their fleet of agents, but also the janitors mopping up the mess when there is an accident (albeit likely mopping with AI-augmented tooling). An AI First SDLC Today – The Reality Enough reflection and nostalgia (I don’t think that’s why you clicked the article), let’s start building something. For the rest of this article I will be building an AI-led, agent-powered software development lifecycle. The example I will be building is an AI-generated weather dashboard. It’s a simple example, but if agents can generate, test, deploy, observe, and evolve this application, it proves that today, and into the future, the process can likely scale to more complex domains. Let’s start with the entry point. The problem statement that we will build from. “As a user I want to view real time weather data for my city so that I can plan my day.” We will use this as the single input for our AI led SDLC. This is what we will pass to promptkit and watch our app and subsequent features built in front of our eyes. The goal is that we will: - Spec-kit to get going and move from textual idea to requirements and scaffold. - Use a coding agent to implement our plan. - A Quality agent to assess the output and quality of the code. - GitHub Actions that not only host the agents (Abstracted) but also handle the build and deployment. - An SRE agent proactively monitoring and opening issues automatically. The end to end flow that we will review through this article is the following: Step 1: Spec-driven development - Spec First, Code Second A big piece of realising an AI-led SDLC today relies on spec-driven development (SDD). One of the best summaries for SDD that I have seen is: “Version control for your thinking”. Instead of huge specs that are stale and buried in a knowledge repository somewhere, SDD looks to make them a first-class citizen within the SDLC. Architectural decisions, business logic, and intent can be captured and versioned as a product evolves; an executable artefact that evolves with the project. In 2025, GitHub released the open-source Spec Kit: a tool that enables the goal of placing a specification at the centre of the engineering process. Specs drive the implementation, checklists, and task breakdowns, steering an agent towards the end goal. This article from GitHub does a great job explaining the basics, so if you’d like to learn more it’s a great place to start (https://github.blog/ai-and-ml/generative-ai/spec-driven-development-with-ai-get-started-with-a-new-open-source-toolkit/). In short, Spec Kit generates requirements, a plan, and tasks to guide a coding agent through an iterative, structured development process. Through the Spec Kit constitution, organisational standards and tech-stack preferences are adhered to throughout each change. I did notice one (likely intentional) gap in functionality that would cement Spec Kit’s role in an autonomous SDLC. That gap is that the implement stage is designed to run within an IDE or client coding agent. You can now, in the IDE, toggle between task implementation locally or with an agent in the cloud. That is great but again it still requires you to drive through the IDE. Thinking about this in the context of an AI-led SDLC (where we are pushing tasks from Spec Kit to a coding agent outside of my own desktop), it was clear that a bridge was needed. As a result, I used Spec Kit to create the Spec-to-issue tool. This allows us to take the tasks and plan generated by Spec Kit, parse the important parts, and automatically create a GitHub issue, with the option to auto-assign the coding agent. From the perspective of an autonomous AI-led SDLC, Speckit really is the entry point that triggers the flow. How Speckit is surfaced to users will vary depending on the organisation and the context of the users. For the rest of this demo I use Spec Kit to create a weather app calling out to the OpenWeather API, and then add additional features with new specs. With one simple prompt of “/promptkit.specify “Application feature/idea/change” I suddenly had a really clear breakdown of the tasks and plan required to get to my desired end state while respecting the context and preferences I had previously set in my Spec Kit constitution. I had mentioned a desire for test driven development, that I required certain coverage and that all solutions were to be Azure Native. The real benefit here compared to prompting directly into the coding agent is that the breakdown of one large task into individual measurable small components that are clear and methodical improves the coding agents ability to perform them by a considerable degree. We can see an example below of not just creating a whole application but another spec to iterate on an existing application and add a feature. We can see the result of the spec creation, the issue in our github repo and most importantly for the next step, our coding agent, GitHub CoPilot has been assigned automatically. Step 2: GitHub Coding Agent - Iterative, autonomous software creation Talking of coding agents, GitHub Copilot’s coding agent is an autonom ous agent in GitHub that can take a scoped development task and work on it in the background using the repository’s context. It can make code changes and produce concrete outputs like commits and pull requests for a developer to review. The developer stays in control by reviewing, requesting changes, or taking over at any point. This does the heavy lifting in our AI-led SDLC. We have already seen great success with customers who have adopted the coding agent when it comes to carrying out menial tasks to save developers time. These coding agents can work in parallel to human developers and with each other. In our example we see that the coding agent creates a new branch for its changes, and creates a PR which it starts working on as it ticks off the various tasks generated in our spec. One huge positive of the coding agent that sets it apart from other similar solutions is the transparency in decision-making and actions taken. The monitoring and observability built directly into the feature means that the agent’s “thinking” is easily visible: the iterations and steps being taken can be viewed in full sequence in the Agents tab. Furthermore, the action that the agent is running is also transparently available to view in the Actions tab, meaning problems can be assessed very quickly. Once the coding agent is finished, it has run the required tests and, even in the case of a UI change, goes as far as calling the Playwright MCP server and screenshotting the change to showcase in the PR. We are then asked to review the change. In this demo, I also created a GitHub Action that is triggered when a PR review is requested: it creates the required resources in Azure and surfaces the (in this case) Azure Container Apps revision URL, making it even smoother for the human in the loop to evaluate the changes. Just like any normal PR, if changes are required comments can be left; when they are, the coding agent can pick them up and action what is needed. It’s also worth noting that for any manual intervention here, use of GitHub Codespaces would work very well to make minor changes or perform testing on an agent’s branch. We can even see the unit tests that have been specified in our spec how been executed by our coding agent. The pattern used here (Spec Kit -> coding agent) overcomes one of the biggest challenges we see with the coding agent. Unlike an IDE-based coding agent, the GitHub.com coding agent is left to its own iterations and implementation without input until the PR review. This can lead to subpar performance, especially compared to IDE agents which have constant input and interruption. The concise and considered breakdown generated from Spec Kit provides the structure and foundation for the agent to execute on; very little is left to interpretation for the coding agent. Step 3: GitHub Code Quality Review (Human in the loop with agent assistance.) GitHub Code Quality is a feature (currently in preview) that proactively identifies code quality risks and opportunities for enhancement both in PRs and through repository scans. These are surfaced within a PR and also in repo-level scoreboards. This means that PRs can now extend existing static code analysis: Copilot can action CodeQL, PMD, and ESLint scanning on top of the new, in-context code quality findings and autofixes. Furthermore, we receive a summary of the actual changes made. This can be used to assist the human in the loop in understanding what changes have been made and whether enhancements or improvements are required. Thinking about this in the context of review coverage, one of the challenges sometimes in already-lean development teams is the time to give proper credence to PRs. Now, with AI-assisted quality scanning, we can be more confident in our overall evaluation and test coverage. I would expect that use of these tools alongside existing human review processes would increase repository code quality and reduce uncaught errors. The data points support this too. The Qodo 2025 AI Code Quality report showed that usage of AI code reviews increased quality improvements to 81% (from 55%). A similar study from Atlassian RovoDev 2026 study showed that 38.7% of comments left by AI agents in code reviews lead to additional code fixes. LLM’s in their current form are never going to achieve 100% accuracy however these are still considerable, significant gains in one of the most important (and often neglected) parts of the SDLC. With a significant number of software supply chain attacks recently it is also not a stretch to imagine that that many projects could benefit from "independently" (use this term loosely) reviewed and summarised PR's and commits. This in the future could potentially by a specialist/sub agent during a PR or merge to focus on identifying malicious code that may be hidden within otherwise normal contributions, case in point being the "near-miss" XZ Utils attack. Step 4: GitHub Actions for build and deploy - No agents here, just deterministic automation. This step will be our briefest, as the idea of CI/CD and automation needs no introduction. It is worth noting that while I am sure there are additional opportunities for using agents within a build and deploy pipeline, I have not investigated them. I often speak with customers about deterministic and non-deterministic business process automation, and the importance of distinguishing between the two. Some processes were created to be deterministic because that is all that was available at the time; the number of conditions required to deal with N possible flows just did not scale. However, now those processes can be non-deterministic. Good examples include IVR decision trees in customer service or hard-coded sales routines to retain a customer regardless of context; these would benefit from less determinism in their execution. However, some processes remain best as deterministic flows: financial transactions, policy engines, document ingestion. While all these flows may be part of an AI solution in the future (possibly as a tool an agent calls, or as part of a larger agent-based orchestration), the processes themselves are deterministic for a reason. Just because we could have dynamic decision-making doesn’t mean we should. Infrastructure deployment and CI/CD pipelines are one good example of this, in my opinion. We could have an agent decide what service best fits our codebase and which region we should deploy to, but do we really want to, and do the benefits outweigh the potential negatives? In this process flow we use a deterministic GitHub action to deploy our weather application into our “development” environment and then promote through the environments until we reach production and we want to now ensure that the application is running smoothly. We also use an action as mentioned above to deploy and surface our agents changes. In Azure Container Apps we can do this in a secure sandbox environment called a “Dynamic Session” to ensure strong isolation of what is essentially “untrusted code”. Often enterprises can view the building and development of AI applications as something that requires a completely new process to take to production, while certain additional processes are new, evaluation, model deployment etc many of our traditional SDLC principles are just as relevant as ever before, CI/CD pipelines being a great example of that. Checked in code that is predictably deployed alongside required services to run tests or promote through environments. Whether you are deploying a java calculator app or a multi agent customer service bot, CI/CD even in this new world is a non-negotiable. We can see that our geolocation feature is running on our Azure Container Apps revision and we can begin to evaluate if we agree with CoPilot that all the feature requirements have been met. In this case they have. If they hadn't we'd just jump into the PR and add a new comment with "@copilot" requesting our changes. Step 5: SRE Agent - Proactive agentic day two operations. The SRE agent service on Azure is an operations-focused agent that continuously watches a running service using telemetry such as logs, metrics, and traces. When it detects incidents or reliability risks, it can investigate signals, correlate likely causes, and propose or initiate response actions such as opening issues, creating runbook-guided fixes, or escalating to an on-call engineer. It effectively automates parts of day two operations while keeping humans in control of approval and remediation. It can be run in two different permission models: one with a reader role that can temporarily take user permissions for approved actions when identified. The other model is a privileged level that allows it to autonomously take approved actions on resources and resource types within the resource groups it is monitoring. In our example, our SRE agent could take actions to ensure our container app runs as intended: restarting pods, changing traffic allocations, and alerting for secret expiry. The SRE agent can also perform detailed debugging to save human SREs time, summarising the issue, fixes tried so far, and narrowing down potential root causes to reduce time to resolution, even across the most complex issues. My initial concern with these types of autonomous fixes (be it VPA on Kubernetes or an SRE agent across your infrastructure) is always that they can very quickly mask problems, or become an anti-pattern where you have drift between your IaC and what is actually running in Azure. One of my favourite features of SRE agents is sub-agents. Sub-agents can be created to handle very specific tasks that the primary SRE agent can leverage. Examples include alerting, report generation, and potentially other third-party integrations or tooling that require a more concise context. In my example, I created a GitHub sub-agent to be called by the primary agent after every issue that is resolved. When called, the GitHub sub-agent creates an issue summarising the origin, context, and resolution. This really brings us full circle. We can then potentially assign this to our coding agent to implement the fix before we proceed with the rest of the cycle; for example, a change where a port is incorrect in some Bicep, or min scale has been adjusted because of latency observed by the SRE agent. These are quick fixes that can be easily implemented by a coding agent, subsequently creating an autonomous feedback loop with human review. Conclusion: The journey through this AI-led SDLC demonstrates that it is possible, with today’s tooling, to improve any existing SDLC with AI assistance, evolving from simply using a chat interface in an IDE. By combining Speckit, spec-driven development, autonomous coding agents, AI-augmented quality checks, deterministic CI/CD pipelines, and proactive SRE agents, we see an emerging ecosystem where human creativity and oversight guide an increasingly capable fleet of collaborative agents. As with all AI solutions we design today, I remind myself that “this is as bad as it gets”. If the last two years are anything to go by, the rate of change in this space means this article may look very different in 12 months. I imagine Spec-to-issue will no longer be required as a bridge, as native solutions evolve to make this process even smoother. There are also some areas of an AI-led SDLC that are not included in this post, things like reviewing the inner-loop process or the use of existing enterprise patterns and blueprints. I also did not review use of third-party plugins or tools available through GitHub. These would make for an interesting expansion of the demo. We also did not look at the creation of custom coding agents, which could be hosted in Microsoft Foundry; this is especially pertinent with the recent announcement of Anthropic models now being available to deploy in Foundry. Does today’s tooling mean that developers, QAs, and engineers are no longer required? Absolutely not (and if I am honest, I can’t see that changing any time soon). However, it is evidently clear that in the next 12 months, enterprises who reshape their SDLC (and any other business process) to become one augmented by agents will innovate faster, learn faster, and deliver faster, leaving organisations who resist this shift struggling to keep up.Beyond the Desktop: The Future of Development with Microsoft Dev Box and GitHub Codespaces
The modern developer platform has already moved past the desktop. We’re no longer defined by what’s installed on our laptops, instead we look at what tooling we can use to move from idea to production. An organisations developer platform strategy is no longer a nice to have, it sets the ceiling for what’s possible, an organisation can’t iterate it's way to developer nirvana if the foundation itself is brittle. A great developer platform shrinks TTFC (time to first commit), accelerates release velocity, and maybe most importantly, helps alleviate everyday frictions that lead to developer burnout. Very few platforms deliver everything an organization needs from a developer platform in one product. Modern development spans multiple dimensions, local tooling, cloud infrastructure, compliance, security, cross-platform builds, collaboration, and rapid onboarding. The options organizations face are then to either compromise on one or more of these areas or force developers into rigid environments that slow productivity and innovation. This is where Microsoft Dev Box and GitHub Codespaces come into play. On their own, each addresses critical parts of the modern developer platform: Microsoft Dev Box provides a full, managed cloud workstation. Dev Box gives developers a consistent, high-performance environment while letting central IT apply strict governance and control. Internally at Microsoft, we estimate that usage of Dev Box by our development teams delivers savings of 156 hours per year per developer purely on local environment setup and upkeep. We have also seen significant gains in other key SPACE metrics reducing context-switching friction and improving build/test cycles. Although the benefits of Dev Box are clear in the results demonstrated by our customers it is not without its challenges. The biggest challenge often faced by Dev Box customers is its lack of native Linux support. At the time of writing and for the foreseeable future Dev Box does not support native Linux developer workstations. While WSL2 provides partial parity, I know from my own engineering projects it still does not deliver the full experience. This is where GitHub Codespaces comes into this story. GitHub Codespaces delivers instant, Linux-native environments spun up directly from your repository. It’s lightweight, reproducible, and ephemeral ideal for rapid iteration, PR testing, and cross-platform development where you need Linux parity or containerized workflows. Unlike Dev Box, Codespaces can run fully in Linux, giving developers access to native tools, scripts, and runtimes without workarounds. It also removes much of the friction around onboarding: a new developer can open a repository and be coding in minutes, with the exact environment defined by the project’s devcontainer.json. That said, Codespaces isn’t a complete replacement for a full workstation. While it’s perfect for isolated project work or ephemeral testing, it doesn’t provide the persistent, policy-controlled environment that enterprise teams often require for heavier workloads or complex toolchains. Used together, they fill the gaps that neither can cover alone: Dev Box gives the enterprise-grade foundation, while Codespaces provides the agile, cross-platform sandbox. For organizations, this pairing sets a higher ceiling for developer productivity, delivering a truly hybrid, agile and well governed developer platform. Better Together: Dev Box and GitHub Codespaces in action Together, Microsoft Dev Box and GitHub Codespaces deliver a hybrid developer platform that combines consistency, speed, and flexibility. Teams can spin up full, policy-compliant Dev Box workstations preloaded with enterprise tooling, IDEs, and local testing infrastructure, while Codespaces provides ephemeral, Linux-native environments tailored to each project. One of my favourite use cases is having local testing setups like a Docker Swarm cluster, ready to go in either Dev Box or Codespaces. New developers can jump in and start running services or testing microservices immediately, without spending hours on environment setup. Anecdotally, my time to first commit and time to delivering “impact” has been significantly faster on projects where one or both technologies provide local development services out of the box. Switching between Dev Boxes and Codespaces is seamless every environment keeps its own libraries, extensions, and settings intact, so developers can jump between projects without reconfiguring or breaking dependencies. The result is a turnkey, ready-to-code experience that maximizes productivity, reduces friction, and lets teams focus entirely on building, testing, and shipping software. To showcase this value, I thought I would walk through an example scenario. In this scenario I want to simulate a typical modern developer workflow. Let's look at a day in the life of a developer on this hybrid platform building an IOT project using Python and React. Spin up a ready-to-go workstation (Dev Box) for Windows development and heavy builds. Launch a Linux-native Codespace for cross-platform services, ephemeral testing, and PR work. Run "local" testing like a Docker Swarm cluster, database, and message queue ready to go out-of-the-box. Switch seamlessly between environments without losing project-specific configurations, libraries, or extensions. 9:00 AM – Morning Kickoff on Dev Box I start my day on my Microsoft Dev Box, which gives me a fully-configured Windows environment with VS Code, design tools, and Azure integrations. I select my teams project, and the environment is pre-configured for me through the Dev Box catalogue. Fortunately for me, its already provisioned. I could always self service another one using the "New Dev Box" button if I wanted too. I'll connect through the browser but I could use the desktop app too if I wanted to. My Tasks are: Prototype a new dashboard widget for monitoring IoT device temperature. Use GUI-based tools to tweak the UI and preview changes live. Review my Visio Architecture. Join my morning stand up. Write documentation notes and plan API interactions for the backend. In a flash, I have access to my modern work tooling like Teams, I have this projects files already preloaded and all my peripherals are working without additional setup. Only down side was that I did seem to be the only person on my stand up this morning? Why Dev Box first: GUI-heavy tasks are fast and responsive. Dev Box’s environment allows me to use a full desktop. Great for early-stage design, planning, and visual work. Enterprise Apps are ready for me to use out of the box (P.S. It also supports my multi-monitor setup). I use my Dev Box to make a very complicated change to my IoT dashboard. Changing the title from "IoT Dashboard" to "Owain's IoT Dashboard". I preview this change in a browser live. (Time for a coffee after this hardwork). The rest of the dashboard isnt loading as my backend isnt running... yet. 10:30 AM – Switching to Linux Codespaces Once the UI is ready, I push the code to GitHub and spin up a Linux-native GitHub Codespace for backend development. Tasks: Implement FastAPI endpoints to support the new IoT feature. Run the service on my Codespace and debug any errors. Why Codespaces now: Linux-native tools ensure compatibility with the production server. Docker and containerized testing run natively, avoiding WSL translation overhead. The environment is fully reproducible across any device I log in from. 12:30 PM – Midday Testing & Sync I toggle between Dev Box and Codespaces to test and validate the integration. I do this in my Dev Box Edge browser viewing my codespace (I use my Codespace in a browser through this demo to highlight the difference in environments. In reality I would leverage the VSCode "Remote Explorer" extension and its GitHub Codespace integration to use my Codespace from within my own desktop VSCode but that is personal preference) and I use the same browser to view my frontend preview. I update the environment variable for my frontend that is running locally in my Dev Box and point it at the port running my API locally on my Codespace. In this case it was a web socket connection and HTTPS calls to port 8000. I can make this public by changing the port visibility in my Codespace. https://fluffy-invention-5x5wp656g4xcp6x9-8000.app.github.dev/api/devices wss://fluffy-invention-5x5wp656g4xcp6x9-8000.app.github.dev/ws This allows me to: Preview the frontend widget on Dev Box, connecting to the backend running in Codespaces. Make small frontend adjustments in Dev Box while monitoring backend logs in Codespaces. Commit changes to GitHub, keeping both environments in sync and leveraging my CI/CD for deployment to the next environment. We can see the Dev Box running local frontend and the Codespace running the API connected to each other, making requests and displaying the data in the frontend! Hybrid advantage: Dev Box handles GUI previews comfortably and allows me to live test frontend changes. Codespaces handles production-aligned backend testing and Linux-native tools. Dev Box allows me to view all of my files in one screen with potentially multiple Codespaces running in browser of VS Code Desktop. Due to all of those platform efficiencies I have completed my days goals within an hour or two and now I can spend the rest of my day learning about how to enable my developers to inner source using GitHub CoPilot and MCP (Shameless plug). The bottom line There are some additional considerations when architecting a developer platform for an enterprise such as private networking and security not covered in this post but these are implementation details to deliver the described developer experience. Architecting such a platform is a valuable investment to deliver the developer platform foundations we discussed at the top of the article. While in this demo I have quickly built I was working in a mono repository in real engineering teams it is likely (I hope) that an application is built of many different repositories. The great thing about Dev Box and Codespaces is that this wouldn’t slow down the rapid development I can achieve when using both. My Dev Box would be specific for the project or development team, pre loaded with all the tools I need and potentially some repos too! When I need too I can quickly switch over to Codespaces and work in a clean isolated environment and push my changes. In both cases any changes I want to deliver locally are pushed into GitHub (Or ADO), merged and my CI/CD ensures that my next step, potentially a staging environment or who knows perhaps *Whispering* straight into production is taken care of. Once I’m finished I delete my Codespace and potentially my Dev Box if I am done with the project, knowing I can self service either one of these anytime and be up and running again! Now is there overlap in terms of what can be developed in a Codespace vs what can be developed in Azure Dev Box? Of course, but as organisations prioritise developer experience to ensure release velocity while maintaining organisational standards and governance then providing developers a windows native and Linux native service both of which are primarily charged on the consumption of the compute* is a no brainer. There are also gaps that neither fill at the moment for example Microsoft Dev Box only provides windows compute while GitHub Codespaces only supports VS Code as your chosen IDE. It's not a question of which service do I choose for my developers, these two services are better together! *Changes have been announced to Dev Box pricing. A W365 license is already required today and dev boxes will continue to be managed through Azure. For more information please see: Microsoft Dev Box capabilities are coming to Windows 365 - Microsoft Dev Box | Microsoft Learn
