best practices

268 Topics

From AI Adoption to AI Governance - Using APIM as the Gateway for Azure AI Foundry
Enterprises move through three phases of AI adoption: evaluating models, building apps and agents, and operationalizing them in production. The first two are easier to accelerate. The third is where governance becomes critical. Once multiple teams share an AI endpoint, leaders need clear answers to practical questions: which model consumed tokens, which team used them, and who is authorized to call it? This post shows how to place Azure API Management (APIM) in front of Azure AI Foundry as an AI Gateway, turning a shared endpoint into a governed control point for per-model token visibility, chargeback, and budget alerts — with no changes to client code. It also shows where Azure Front Door and Web Application Firewall (WAF) fit in a secure AI Landing Zone. The problem: AI adoption is outpacing AI governance A common starting point is an Azure OpenAI resource running multiple models. The team already has operational telemetry, but governance needs a different view: per-model token usage for chargeback, budget alerts, and capacity planning, captured in one place. Azure gives you rich resource-level telemetry out of the box, and that is exactly where we started: Azure Monitor — Metrics blade: shows token usage split by model and deployment in near real time. Diagnostic settings: stream the resource's metrics and request logs into Log Analytics (the AzureMetrics and AzureDiagnostics tables). Azure Monitor provides useful resource-level telemetry, including metrics and diagnostic logs. A governance view needs something different: model identity and token counts correlated in a single record, so teams can build a per-model, month-to-date ledger for chargeback and alerting. The AzureMetrics table carries the token totals, aggregated at the resource level. The AzureDiagnostics logs carry the model and deployment name at the request level. Each stream does its job well. Correlating them into one per-model, month-to-date ledger — and alerting on it — is a governance concern that sits above any single resource. Azure Monitor metric alerts, for instance, work on a rolling 24-hour window that maps cleanly onto a per-day token budget; a month-to-date, per-model chargeback ledger is simply a different shape of question — and a natural fit for a dedicated control point. This transition is the focus of this post: moving from AI adoption to AI governance by introducing a control point where model identity and token usage are captured together by design. The natural home for that control point is an AI gateway — and we build it next with Azure API Management in front of Azure AI Foundry. The pattern: APIM as the AI Gateway for Azure AI Foundry The AI gateway in Azure API Management is a set of capabilities to secure, scale, monitor, and govern the AI models, agents, and tools behind your apps. It isn't a separate product — it extends the existing API Management gateway. As Microsoft's guidance puts it, as AI adoption matures the gateway helps you authenticate and authorize access to AI services, load balance across endpoints, monitor and log AI interactions, and manage token usage and quotas across multiple applications. APIM becomes the governed front door for Azure AI Foundry. Clients continue calling an OpenAI-compatible endpoint; APIM authenticates to Foundry with a system-assigned managed identity, forwards the request, and emits per-model token telemetry to Azure Monitor and Application Insights. The result is per-model visibility without client-side changes. Models behind the gateway The gateway can front any model deployment in Azure AI Foundry — Azure OpenAI models, other Foundry models, or a mix — and the pattern is identical no matter which you run. For a concrete reference, the walkthrough in this post sits in front of two existing deployments: Deployment Model Capacity (TPM) gpt-4.1 gpt-4.1 500K gpt-5 gpt-5 50K Example deployments referenced throughout this post. Note the deliberate capacity gap — gpt-5 at 50K TPM versus 500K for gpt-4.1 — exactly the kind of asymmetry that makes per-model visibility a governance requirement, not a nice-to-have. Architecture Figure 1 — Architecture / component flow: consumers call one governed API; the inbound policy authenticates with a managed identity, resolves the model, and emits per-model token metrics to Azure Monitor and Application Insights. The starting point (“before”): a pass-through without a usage signal By default, APIM operates as a straightforward proxy. If you import a Foundry API and keep the default configuration, the policy simply selects the backend service: <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-backend-service id="apim-generated-policy" backend-id="testfoundry277-ai-endpoint" /> </inbound> <backend><base /></backend> <outbound><base /></outbound> <on-error><base /></on-error> </policies> A plain pass-through API. It forwards traffic faithfully — it simply doesn't surface a usage signal yet. This is our “before.” Pass-through configuration works, but it does not distinguish traffic by model. All requests flow through the same stream, with no per-model chargeback signal, no capacity warning, and no clear view of which deployment is driving consumption. To govern the workload, the gateway must understand the traffic — not just relay it. The governed gateway (“after”): a policy that sees every token The custom inbound policy below is the heart of the pattern. It does four things in order: set-backend-service — select the Azure AI Foundry backend. authentication-managed-identity — obtain an Entra ID token for cognitiveservices.azure.com using APIM's system-assigned identity. No keys ever leave the gateway. set-variable deployment-id — resolve the model name from either the URL path or the request body (more on why below). azure-openai-emit-token-metric — emit prompt, completion, and total token counts to Azure Monitor, dimensioned by model. <policies> <inbound> <base /> <set-backend-service backend-id="foundry-apim-si-ai-endpoint" /> <authentication-managed-identity resource="https://cognitiveservices.azure.com" />  <set-variable name="deployment-id" value="@{ var path = context.Request.Url.Path ?? ""; var m = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Match(path, "/deployments/([^/?]+)"); if (m.Success) { return m.Groups[1].Value; } try { var body = context.Request.Body?.As<JObject>(preserveContent: true); var model = body?["model"]; if (model != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.ToString())) { return model.ToString(); } } catch (Exception) { } return "unknown"; }" />  <azure-openai-emit-token-metric namespace="genai-tokens"> <dimension name="ModelDeploymentName" value="@((string)context.Variables["deployment-id"])" /> <dimension name="ModelName" value="@((string)context.Variables["deployment-id"])" /> <dimension name="APIId" value="@(context.Api.Id)" /> <dimension name="Subscription" value="@(context.Subscription?.Id ?? "none")" /> <dimension name="Client IP" value="@(context.Request.IpAddress)" /> <dimension name="Product ID" value="@(context.Product?.Id ?? "none")" /> </azure-openai-emit-token-metric> </inbound> <backend> <base /> </backend> <outbound> <base /> </outbound> <on-error> <base /> </on-error> </policies> The full custom policy, applied at API scope. The highlighted value is the model-name resolution feeding a per-model token metric. Request flow, end to end Figure 2 traces a single chat request from top to bottom — from the caller, through the gateway's inbound policy, out to Azure AI Foundry, and into your telemetry. Figure 2 — Per-request flow: authentication, model resolution, forwarding, and token-metric emission. The request flow is straightforward: the client calls the APIM endpoint, the gateway selects the Foundry backend, authenticates with managed identity, resolves the model name, forwards the request, emits token metrics, and returns the response unchanged. Governance is added at the gateway without requiring client-side changes. Why dual-shape model resolution matters The azure-openai-emit-token-metric policy can emit usage, but it still needs a model dimension. Different API surfaces place the model name in different locations: Foundry Model Inference and Anthropic-style requests use the body, while Azure OpenAI-compatible calls use the URL path. The policy handles both shapes, so one gateway can govern all callers consistently. Observability: per-model token visibility and chargeback Metrics land in Azure Monitor / Application Insights under the namespace genai-tokens. The policy records Total Tokens, Prompt Tokens, and Completion Tokens, each tagged with Model Name, Model Deployment Name, API Id, APIM Product Subscription, Client IP, and Product ID. The data can then be queried directly. Per-model consumption over time: customMetrics | where name == "Total Tokens" | where timestamp >= startofmonth(now()) | extend ModelName = tostring(customDimensions["ModelName"]) | summarize TotalTokens = sum(valueSum), Calls = sum(valueCount) by ModelName Per-model token consumption (Application Insights customMetrics). And a per-model, per- API product subscription view for chargeback: customMetrics | where name == "Total Tokens" | where timestamp >= startofmonth(now()) | extend Model = tostring(customDimensions["ModelName"]), Sub = tostring(customDimensions["Subscription"]) | summarize Tokens = sum(value) by Model, Sub, name | order by Tokens desc Chargeback: tokens by model and consuming subscription. The gateway records model identity and token usage together, so the chargeback view is built in. The same signal supports dashboards, daily budget alerts, capacity planning, and cost allocation by subscription or product — without changing client code. Turning the signal into a Cost Guardrail: a 24-hour token alert Because the token totals now carry the model name, you can put a hard guardrail on spend. Wrap a query in an Azure Monitor log search alert rule that sums Total Tokens over the last 24 hours per model and returns only the deployments that breach a daily budget: // Rolling 24-hour token-budget guardrail — returns any model over its daily cap let dailyTokenBudget = 50000; // max Total Tokens per model in a rolling 24h window customMetrics | where name == "Total Tokens" | where timestamp > ago(24h) extend Model = tostring(customDimensions["ModelName"]) | summarize TokensLast24h = sum(value) by Model | where TokensLast24h > dailyTokenBudget | extend OverBudgetBy = TokensLast24h - dailyTokenBudget | project Model, TokensLast24h, DailyBudget = dailyTokenBudget, OverBudgetBy A rolling 24-hour token-budget check. The alert rule fires whenever this query returns one or more rows. Configure this as a scheduled log search alert: evaluate on a short cadence (for example, hourly over the trailing 24-hour window), set the alert logic to fire when the result count is greater than zero, and attach an action group that notifies the team through an email distribution list or Microsoft Teams channel. When any model crosses its rolling 24-hour token budget, the owning team is alerted, so overspend is detected within the day rather than at invoice time. Tune dailyTokenBudget per model, or add a single all-up cap, and translate token budgets into estimated daily cost ceilings to maintain continuous spend visibility. Completing the picture: securing the AI Landing Zone with Front Door + WAF APIM governs model usage; Azure Front Door with WAF governs public access. Placing WAF at the edge protects the AI endpoint from common web attacks, malicious bots, abusive callers, and unwanted source IP ranges before traffic reaches APIM or Foundry. What Front Door + WAF adds OWASP protection: the Azure-managed Microsoft_DefaultRuleSet_2.1 defends against OWASP Top 10 web attacks and known CVEs; Microsoft_BotManagerRuleSet_1.0 blocks malicious bots. Run the policy in prevention mode so offending requests are rejected with a 403, not just logged. IP restriction and rate limiting: custom WAF rules restrict access to known IP ranges and throttle abusive callers before they ever reach APIM or Foundry. Global edge: Front Door terminates TLS at the edge and provides a single, DDoS-protected public entry point for the workload. Defense in depth across the landing zone Layered against the Microsoft Foundry landing zone baseline, the request path looks like this: Defense in depth: WAF at the edge, governance at the gateway, isolation on the network, Foundry reachable only over a private endpoint. The baseline Microsoft Foundry landing zone reinforces every layer: private endpoints keep PaaS services (Foundry, Key Vault, Storage, AI Search) off the public internet; a system-assigned managed identity removes API keys; a hub-and-spoke topology routes egress through Azure Firewall; Azure Key Vault holds the Front Door TLS certificate; and Azure Policy enforces guardrails across the subscription. The gateway pattern from Sections 2–6 slots directly into this architecture as the governed control point for model traffic. Outcomes and what to extend next With APIM and the security edge in place, the shared endpoint supports per-model chargeback, capacity planning, zero client changes, and a stronger security baseline. The same gateway pattern can then be extended with token quotas, semantic caching, content safety, resiliency, and a unified model API. Closing thoughts Moving from AI adoption to AI governance does not require re-architecting every app; it requires a control point. APIM in front of Azure AI Foundry provides that point: one policy turns token usage into a per-model governance signal, and Front Door with WAF provides a hardened edge. Start with visibility, then add quotas, safety, and resiliency as adoption scales. References AI gateway capabilities in Azure API Management — Microsoft Learn Baseline Microsoft Foundry chat reference architecture in an Azure landing zone — Azure Architecture Center Protect Azure OpenAI using Azure Web Application Firewall on Azure Front Door — Microsoft Learn LLM token limit policy — Microsoft Learn Emit token consumption metrics (llm-emit-token-metric) — Microsoft Learn
abhimittal
Jul 13, 2026 Place Apps on Azure Blog
137Views
0likes
0Comments
Azure Function App — Queue-Based Architecture for Long-Running Sync Jobs
The Problem: HTTP Triggers and Long-Running Jobs Don't Mix Here's a situation you've probably run into: you have a job that needs to loop over dozens of Azure resources, call APIs, and do real work. You wrap it in an HTTP-triggered Azure Function so it can be called on demand. It works great and after a few minutes, the caller gets a 504 Gateway Timeout. The 230-second limit is enforced by Azure Front Door / the platform load balancer. It cannot be overridden by app settings or host configuration. Any HTTP trigger that runs longer than ~3.5 minutes will timeout for the caller. In our case, the job iterates over 30+ Azure subscriptions — for each one it switches context, lists resources, and triggers image imports. Total runtime: anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes depending on how many ACRs need updating. Way over the limit. The Solution: Decouple Request from Execution via a Queue The fix is clean once you see it: the HTTP trigger shouldn't do the work — it should just accept the work and hand it off. That's what a queue is for. The flow splits into two independent phases: Request phase — The HTTP trigger validates the caller (JWT + app role check), packages the job parameters into a queue message, and returns 202 Accepted. This takes under 3 seconds. Execution phase — A Queue Trigger picks up the message and runs the actual sync. No HTTP connection involved, so there's no timeout. On a Dedicated (P-series) plan, execution time is unlimited. Approach What the caller gets Result HTTP trigger → run sync inline Waits for the full job to complete 504 TIMEOUT after 230 seconds HTTP trigger → Queue → Queue Trigger 202 Accepted immediately NO TIMEOUT job runs as long as needed 🤸‍♀️There's an added bonus - Reliability in Azure Queue Storage: Azure Storage Queues give you automatic retry out of the box. If the job crashes halfway through, the message becomes visible again after a visibility timeout and the Queue Trigger picks it up for a retry — up to 5 attempts before the message is moved to the poison queue. No retry logic to write 🤸‍♀️. Locking Down the Endpoint Since the HTTP trigger is the public entry point, it needs solid auth. We layer two things: ⭐Use EasyAuth for the "is this a real Entra ID token?" check, and a custom App Role for the "is this person allowed to trigger syncs?" check. These are independent concerns and should stay that way. Layer What it does How EasyAuth (Entra ID) Rejects requests without a valid Entra ID Bearer token — before your code even runs Configured at the Function App level via the Authentication blade App Role check Validates that the token contains the SyncJob.Execute role — only assigned users/SPs can trigger the job Decoded in the function code from the JWT roles claim Managed Identity Authenticates the Function App to Azure APIs (no credentials in code) Connect-AzAccount -Identity — identity assigned via RBAC One gotcha worth knowing: when using v2 tokens (which is the default with modern App Registrations), the aud claim in the token is the raw App ID GUID — not the api:// prefixed URI. You need to explicitly add both forms to your allowedAudiences in EasyAuth, otherwise valid tokens get rejected. APP_ID="<your-app-id>" TENANT_ID="<your-tenant-id>" FUNCTION_APP_URL="https://<your-function-app>.azurewebsites.net" # Interactive login (device code flow — works from any terminal) az login --tenant "${TENANT_ID}" \ --scope "api://${APP_ID}/.default" \ --use-device-code TOKEN=$(az account get-access-token \ --scope "api://${APP_ID}/.default" \ --query accessToken -o tsv) # Trigger the sync — returns 202 immediately curl -s -X POST "${FUNCTION_APP_URL}/api/SyncContainerRegistryHttpTrigger" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" Passing Parameters Through the Queue One nice property of this pattern: the queue message is just JSON, so you can pass whatever parameters the job needs. In our case, we pass a subscriptionFilter wildcard so callers can target a subset of subscriptions without touching any code. The parameter travels the full chain: HTTP body → queue message → Queue Trigger → PowerShell script parameter. Here's how each step handles it. Step 1 — HTTP Trigger reads the body and enqueues the message using the Push-OutputBinding output binding. Azure Functions wires the binding to the queue automatically — no SDK call needed: param($Request, $TriggerMetadata) # ... decode the JWT, check role assignment $queuePayload = @{ triggeredBy = $decoded.Payload.upn ?? $decoded.Payload.oid triggeredAt = (Get-Date -Format 'o') subscriptionFilter = if ($body.subscriptionFilter) { $body.subscriptionFilter } else { "*" } } | ConvertTo-Json -Compress Push-OutputBinding -Name QueueMessage -Value $queuePayload Push-OutputBinding -Name Response -Value ([HttpResponseContext]@{ StatusCode = [System.Net.HttpStatusCode]::Accepted Body = @{ message = "Sync job queued. Check Azure Monitor logs for execution status." } }) ⭐Push-OutputBinding is how Azure Functions PowerShell workers write to output bindings (queues, blobs, HTTP responses…). The binding name QueueMessage maps to the queue defined in function.json — the runtime handles serialisation and delivery. Step 2 — Queue Trigger passes the filter to the script as a named parameter: param($QueueItem, $TriggerMetadata) Write-Host "Triggered SyncContainerRegistry via Storage Queue. Payload: $QueueItem" $subscriptionFilter = if ($QueueItem.subscriptionFilter) { $QueueItem.subscriptionFilter } else { "*" } $SubscriptionFilter = $subscriptionFilter . "$PSScriptRoot/../SyncContainerRegistry/run.ps1" Step 3 — Long running job with the filter as parameter: param($Timer) if (-not $SubscriptionFilter) { $SubscriptionFilter = "*" } $subscriptions = Get-AzSubscription | Where-Object { $_.Name -like $SubscriptionFilter } foreach ($subscription in $subscriptions) { Set-AzContext -SubscriptionId $subscription.Id | Out-Null # ... do the work } Targeting a subset of subscriptions # Sync all subscriptions (default — omit the body) curl -s -X POST "${FUNCTION_APP_URL}/api/SyncContainerRegistryHttpTrigger" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" # Sync only subscriptions matching a pattern curl -s -X POST "${FUNCTION_APP_URL}/api/SyncContainerRegistryHttpTrigger" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer ${TOKEN}" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"subscriptionFilter": "*project-alpha*"}' ⭐PowerShell's -like operator uses * as a wildcard anywhere in the string. The pattern *project-alpha* matches sub-mycompany-project-alpha-prd, sub-mycompany-project-alpha-dev, etc. A pattern without a leading * only matches from the start of the string — keep this in mind when naming subscriptions. Pushing a Message Directly via PowerShell You can also push a message straight to the queue without going through the HTTP trigger — useful for testing, scripting, or bypassing the auth layer in a controlled environment. Connect-AzAccount # or -Identity for a Managed Identity context $storageAccount = "<your-storage-account>" $queueName = "sync-job-queue" # Build the payload — same shape the HTTP trigger produces $payload = @{ triggeredBy = $env:USERNAME triggeredAt = (Get-Date -Format 'o') subscriptionFilter = "*project-alpha*" # or "*" for all } | ConvertTo-Json -Compress # Get a queue client via the connected account (no key needed) $ctx = New-AzStorageContext -StorageAccountName $storageAccount -UseConnectedAccount $queue = Get-AzStorageQueue -Name $queueName -Context $ctx $queue.QueueClient.SendMessage($payload) ⭐ -UseConnectedAccount authenticates via the current Connect-AzAccount session — no storage key required, as long as your identity has the Storage Queue Data Message Sender role on the storage account. The Queue Message The HTTP trigger packages the caller identity and filter into a simple JSON payload before enqueuing. The Queue Trigger reads it back as a deserialised PowerShell object — no manual JSON parsing needed. { "triggeredBy": "user@company.com", "triggeredAt": "2026-06-01T11:03:55.570+02:00", "subscriptionFilter": "*project-alpha*" } Design Decisions at a Glance Decision Choice Why Async execution Azure Storage Queue HTTP trigger has a hard 230s timeout. The sync job takes 2–10 minutes. The queue decouples acceptance from execution — and gives us retry for free. Authentication EasyAuth + App Role No credentials in code. Access is controlled via Entra ID app roles — revocable per user without touching infrastructure. Azure identity Managed Identity No secrets to rotate or store. The Function App authenticates to Azure APIs using its platform-assigned identity. Job parameter Wildcard filter via queue payload Lets callers target any subscription subset without code changes. The filter travels through the queue — the Queue Trigger just passes it along. Hosting plan Dedicated (P-series) Consumption plan caps function execution at 10 minutes. A Dedicated plan has no execution time limit — essential when the job can run longer. See you in the Cloud Jamesdld
Jamesdld23
Jul 08, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
1.8KViews
1like
1Comment
Token Economics: The New FinOps for Agentic AI
In AI applications, tokens are now cost — and token economics deserves architectural attention For a long time, AI application design started with model capability: Can the model write code? Can it reason? Can it use tools? Can it handle long context? Those questions still matter, but in the age of agentic applications, they are no longer sufficient. The more important production question is this: How many tokens does the architecture burn to complete one useful task? A classic chat application often maps one user turn to one model call. An agentic system is different. One user goal can trigger planning, retrieval, tool selection, tool execution, result interpretation, reflection, repair, and summarization. The user sees one instruction; the system may execute dozens of model calls behind the scenes. Tokens are no longer just a measure of text length. They become a measure of system design, runtime behavior, developer workflow, and business cost. GitHub Copilot’s 2026 move to usage-based billing through GitHub AI Credits captures the industry shift clearly. Usage is now aligned with token consumption, including input, output, and cached tokens. That matters because Copilot has evolved from an in-editor assistant into an agentic platform that can handle long, multi-step coding sessions across repositories. In that world, a tiny prompt and a multi-hour autonomous coding workflow should not be treated as the same economic unit. Token economics is therefore not about telling developers to “write shorter prompts.” It is about designing systems where: useful context is preserved, while noise is removed; repeated context is cached or deduplicated; simple tasks do not pay for frontier models; short-term state is managed structurally instead of copied repeatedly; every model call is metered, comparable, and governed. In short: token economics is the practice of making agentic AI economically sustainable. Scenario thinking: GitHub Copilot billing, Copilot SDK, GPT-5.5, Anthropic, and MAI-Code Model The new GitHub Copilot billing model provides a useful framing for developers. Copilot is no longer only autocomplete. It is becoming a programmable agentic platform. It can use models, call tools, work across files, stream responses, and participate in long-running coding workflows. With the GitHub Copilot SDK, developers can embed that agentic runtime into their own applications, services, and developer tools. That is powerful, but it also changes the cost model. Once an agent loop becomes programmable, token cost also needs to become programmable. If a system can plan, call tools, edit files, retry, repair, and summarize, it also needs to meter, route, cache, compress, and evaluate. EvalAgentic gives this idea a concrete playground. The project groups models into cost and capability tiers: Tier Example models Example price / 1K tokens Typical use LARGE claude-opus-4.8, gpt-5.5 $0.030 Agents, code generation, multi-step reasoning MID gpt-5.4-mini $0.012 Dialogue, summarization, extraction TINY gpt-5-mini $0.001 Classification, keyword matching, rule-like tasks This tiering lets us reason about real scenarios: GPT-5.5-class models are valuable for hard reasoning and engineering workflows, but they should not be the default for every step. Using a frontier model for simple classification is like hiring a principal architect to label folders. Anthropic high-capability models can be excellent for complex reasoning and coding, but they benefit from routing discipline. Requirements analysis, test interpretation, deployment explanation, and code generation may not need the same model tier. MAI-Code Model-style coding models should be treated as specialized capability layers. Their value is not just “better code generation”; it is deciding when code-specialized intelligence should be invoked in a larger agent pipeline. The real question is not “Which model is the best?” It is: Which model is the most economical and reliable for this step of this workflow? Four engineering techniques for saving tokens Context Compression: turn long text into executable structure Implementation principle Context Compression converts long natural-language context into the structured information an agent actually needs. Business documents are often verbose: resumes, contracts, product manuals, requirements, and support logs contain narrative text, boilerplate, repeated explanations, and low-value context. The next agent step may only need a few fields. EvalAgentic demonstrates this with a long resume-like input that is compressed into a compact JSON object. Instead of injecting the full original text into every prompt, the system extracts key fields and dynamically injects only the data required by the current task. A practical compression pipeline includes: Redundancy detection — identify long-tail text, repeated descriptions, stale history, and low-value context. Structured extraction — use Copilot or a mid-tier model to transform prose into JSON, tables, or typed schemas. Dynamic injection — inject only the fields needed for the next step. Recoverable references — preserve source pointers so compressed context remains auditable. How to evaluate Prompt token reduction before and after compression. Answer quality and task success rate. Schema fidelity and missing-field rate. Latency improvement. Cost per successful task. Compression is not summarization. Summaries are designed for humans. Structured compression is designed for agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache: stop paying twice for the same context Implementation principle Many agent systems waste tokens because they repeatedly send the same context. The same resume, contract, repository README, user profile, API documentation, or business rule can be copied across turns and agents. Prompt Deduplication / Cache applies a simple principle: if context has already been processed, do not pay to process it again unless it has changed. A concrete design includes: compute a hash or semantic key for source context; reuse extracted structured results when content is identical or equivalent; apply a TTL for repeated entities, such as the 24-hour cache pattern shown in EvalAgentic; organize stable prompt prefixes to benefit from provider-level prompt caching where available; store shared context in an artifact store or memory layer so multiple agents do not copy the same blob. How to evaluate Cache hit rate. Cached token ratio. Duplicate prompt rate. Cost delta before and after caching. Correctness under cache, especially stale-cache failures. Caching is not “save everything forever.” Good caching knows when to reuse and when to invalidate. On-Demand Model Routing: let task complexity decide model tier Implementation principle On-Demand Model Routing routes each request to the cheapest model that can complete the task reliably. The entry point can use a rule tree, a lightweight classifier, or a hybrid complexity score. EvalAgentic’s routing tree is intentionally easy to explain: INCOMING REQUEST └─ Prompt < 500 tokens? ── YES ─→ TINY: classify / extract └─ NO ──→ multi-step reasoning? ├─ NO ─→ MID: dialogue / summary └─ YES ─→ LARGE: agent / code The engineering logic is straightforward: simple classification and keyword matching go to TINY; summarization and structured conversion go to MID; multi-step reasoning, coding, cross-file changes, and orchestration go to LARGE; code-specialized models such as MAI-Code Model can be placed in the coding phase rather than used across the whole pipeline. How to evaluate Routing accuracy. Cost per route. Quality regression by tier. Escalation rate from small models to larger models. End-to-end success rate. Routing does not mean “always use the smallest model.” It means frontier intelligence is reserved for the steps where it actually changes the outcome. Short-term Memory: preserve state instead of replaying history Implementation principle Short-term Memory controls context growth across multi-turn and multi-agent workflows. Without it, agents often replay the full conversation history, full tool outputs, and full intermediate reasoning on every turn. The context grows; quality may not improve; the bill definitely does. A better design stores state structurally: user goal; current plan; tool outputs and references; failure reasons; next actions; handoff artifacts between agents. In a multi-agent coding pipeline, the Requirements Agent should hand off a structured spec. The Coding Agent should read that spec, not the entire prior conversation. The Testing Agent should consume testable artifacts, not every word produced by the Coding Agent. How to evaluate Context growth curve across turns. Memory retrieval precision. Rework rate caused by missing state. Recovery quality after failed steps. Average input tokens per turn. Short-term memory is not about remembering everything. It is about remembering the next useful thing. EvalAgentic as a concrete evaluation example EvalAgentic is effective as an evangelism project because it turns token economics into an observable before/after system. The architecture has five layers: Frontend — frontend/index.html provides Tabs A / B / C, live SSE logs, and before/after charts. API — backend/server.py exposes FastAPI routes and Server-Sent Events streaming. Orchestration — eval.py handles A/B evaluation; coding_agents.py handles the multi-agent coding scenario. Core — compressor.py, router.py, gh_models.py, and token_meter.py implement compression, routing, Copilot SDK calls, and token metering. Providers — GitHub Copilot SDK and Microsoft Agent Framework provide model access and agent orchestration. Tab A: Compression comparison Tab A compares long-form context before and after structured compression. The key message is that token saving does not come from writing a clever sentence. It comes from converting verbose context into a structured artifact that downstream agents can consume efficiently. Tab B: On-demand model routing Tab B demonstrates that cost is not only about raw token count. If a system routes simple tasks to cheaper tiers and reserves expensive models for complex reasoning, total cost can fall even if some token counts increase. This is a subtle but important point: token economics is not token starvation; it is model portfolio optimization. Tab C: Coding scenario — multi-agent with Agent Framework Tab C is the most persuasive demo. The same deliverable — a Taobao-like goods-list site with HTML + JavaScript frontend, Flask backend, and Docker deployment — is produced twice by a four-agent pipeline: Requirements Agent; Coding Agent; Testing Agent; Deployment Agent. The before pipeline uses no compression and sends every agent to GPT-5.5 / LARGE. The after pipeline injects a compressed JSON spec and uses on-demand routing: requirements can use MID, coding can use LARGE, testing can use MID, and deployment can use TINY. This mirrors real enterprise development. Architecture and complex code generation may deserve frontier models. Test interpretation, deployment packaging, and simple validation often do not. Summary and refinement based on the project diagrams The EvalAgentic README describes three important visuals: the architecture flow, the routing tree, and the token-meter design. Together, they form a governance loop: User Scenario ↓ Context Compression ↓ Prompt Deduplication / Cache ↓ On-Demand Model Routing ↓ Short-term Memory ↓ Token Metering & Budget Actions ↓ Before / After Evaluation Optimize the path, not only the prompt Many teams start token optimization by editing prompt wording. That helps, but the largest waste usually lives in the execution path: how many calls are made, how much context is repeated, how often tools retry, and whether every step uses the same expensive model. EvalAgentic makes the path visible through A/B comparisons. Token Meter is the control plane of cost governance EvalAgentic’s token_meter.py uses a non-invasive interceptor pattern: INTERCEPTOR (@token_meter) ↓ COUNTER CORE: accounting / budget threshold / trigger ↓ ACTION HUB: throttle (>80% budget) / rollback (>budget) This is the right architectural instinct. Production systems need thresholds, throttling, rollback, and traceability. Without those controls, one retry loop can quietly turn a small user request into a budget incident. Cost metrics must be evaluated with quality metrics A system that cuts cost by 80% but drops success rate by 50% is not optimized. It is broken more cheaply. The evaluation matrix should combine cost, quality, latency, and reliability: Dimension Metric Why it matters Cost Cost per successful task Measures the real unit economics Token Input / output / cached tokens Identifies compression and cache opportunities Quality Pass rate / regression rate Ensures cheaper tiers do not break outcomes Efficiency Latency / retry count Prevents cheap models from causing expensive retries Governance Budget breach / rollback count Validates runtime control Narrative A simple three-line narrative works well for demos: Token is no longer a technical detail. It is the bill of your architecture. EvalAgentic shows the same scenario before and after cost-aware design. The goal is not to make models cheaper; the goal is to make agent systems economically governable. For a developer audience, the sharper version is: A good agent does not use the biggest model everywhere. It uses the right intelligence at the right step, with the right context, under the right budget. Practical recommendations for real projects Establish a token baseline first. Measure input, output, retries, tool calls, and cost per scenario before optimizing. Make compression a component, not a prompt habit. Define schemas, cache policies, and fallback behavior. Introduce a model routing matrix. Route by task type, complexity, risk, latency, and cost. Define handoff contracts between agents. Pass structured artifacts, not endless conversation history. Evaluate every optimization with A/B tests. Compare cost, quality, latency, and stability. Add budget actions. Throttle at a threshold, rollback on breach, and add circuit breakers for failed retries. Closing: token economics is the second curve of agent engineering The first phase of AI application development was about calling models. The second phase was about putting models into products. The next phase of agentic AI is about running those systems reliably, affordably, and governably. EvalAgentic matters because it turns Context Compression, Prompt Deduplication / Cache, On-Demand Model Routing, and Short-term Memory into something developers can run, compare, and explain. It moves token economics from opinion to instrumentation. Future AI applications will not only ask: How smart is this agent? They will ask: How many tokens does it spend per completed task? Which model did it use? Did it hit cache? Did retries run away? Did the system reserve frontier intelligence for the steps that deserved it? References kinfey/EvalAgentic GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing Updates to GitHub Copilot billing and plans Copilot SDK - GitHub Docs
kinfey
Jul 06, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
4.8KViews
2likes
0Comments
How to build long-running MCP tools on Azure Functions
Recently, a customer building servers with the Azure Functions MCP extension reached out and asked: How do I handle tools that take longer than the client is willing to wait? This becomes especially relevant when tool calls move beyond simple request/response into multi-step workflows and long-running operations. At the same time, MCP is evolving to address exactly this. The Tasks extension is introduced in the 2026-07-28 release candidate, defining a standard way to model long-running work. In this post, we’ll walk through how to build long-running MCP tools on Azure Functions using Durable Functions , a framework for authoring stateful, long-running workflows as ordinary code, with checkpointing, scaling, and recovery handled automatically. MCP tools today Today, MCP tools are fundamentally request/response: the client issues a tools/call the server returns a result This works well for fast operations, but breaks down when: workflows take minutes execution depends on multiple steps latency is unpredictable In practice, clients enforce their own tool-call timeouts. These aren't standardized by the MCP spec and vary per client, but they're often in the ~30–60 second range. If a tool exceeds that window: In practice, clients often enforce short timeouts. If a tool exceeds that window: the client times out the agent observes a failed call the underlying work may still be running So the core issue is that you have synchronous tool calls don’t naturally model long-running work. The MCP Tasks extension The Tasks extension to address this. With the extension, a server can respond to a tools/call with an asynchronous task handle instead of a final result, and the client drives the lifecycle from there: tasks/get: poll the task's status tasks/update: submit input back to the server if the task reaches input_required tasks/cancel: cancel an in-flight task A task carries a status ("working", "input_required", "completed", "failed", or "cancelled") and on completion, the final result. Task creation is server-directed: the client advertises support by including the extension in its per-request capabilities, and the server decides per request whether to return a task. A server won't return a task to a client that hasn't advertised support. It's important to note that Tasks rely on ecosystem support. Clients must advertise the extension, and MCP SDKs must implement the task lifecycle, before servers can use it. So while Tasks is now a defined extension, broad client and SDK support is still in progress. Implement long-runng tasks with Durable Functions today Until the Tasks extension is broadly supported across clients, we need a pattern that works with existing request/response clients and supports long-running execution. The following samples show how, using Durable Functions: Python NET The long-running work in this sample mines a short chain of blocks. Each block requires solving a computational puzzle where the system keeps trying different inputs until it finds one that produces a result matching a specific pattern (for example, starting with a certain number of zeros). Because this involves lots of trial and error, it naturally takes time, making it a good example of a long-running workflow. The server in the sample exposes two tools: start_mining Starts a Durable Functions orchestration to mine the blocks Waits briefly (within a configurable budget) Returns result inline if completed within budget OR returns workflow_id if still running get_mining_result Takes the workflow_id Returns the current state, e.g. "completed", "running", "failed", or "not_found" To ensure that the agent calls the tools in the right order, workflow_id is a required parameter of get_mining_result, so the agent can't poll without starting a mining run first. Also, the "running" response carries a poll_after_seconds and a next instruction, ensuring the agent to poll again if work is not done rather than give up or assume completion. Even so, the poll path still relies on the agent correctly remembering, and not hallucinating, the workflow_id it was handed. If it garbles or invents an id, the poll lands on the wrong instance or none at all (which is why get_mining_result returns "not_found" rather than guessing). What changes with the Tasks extension Once the Tasks extension is fully implemented across clients and SDKs, the model becomes simpler and more reliable: the server returns a Task handle, the client manages the polling and lifecyle calls, and the SDK tracks execution state. This removes a key limitation of today’s solution, which requires the agent to remember and correctly pass identifiers like workflow_id. Call to action Try out the sample and let us know whether it addresses your MCP needs around long-running or workflow type tools!
lily-ma
Jul 01, 2026 Place Apps on Azure Blog
394Views
0likes
0Comments
GitHub Copilot App - Canvas Is Not a UI Builder
What if your development environment didn't just help you write code, but helped you observe, steer, and evolve a living system while it runs? That's the shift GitHub Copilot App Canvas represents. Canvas redefines how developers interact with agent-driven software: not by building traditional user interfaces, but by creating interactive environments where humans and AI co-create, test, and iterate in real time. This post walks through a real Canvas extension we built, a Multi-Agent Dev Canvas that demonstrates how Canvas becomes a runtime observability and control plane for an agent-driven system. We'll cover why Canvas exists, how it differs from traditional UI development, and how you can use it to accelerate the design-test-evolve loop for any multi-agent application. The Misconception: "Canvas Is for Building UIs" The first instinct many developers have when they see Canvas is to treat it like a UI framework, a place to build dashboards, boards, or user-facing applications. That's not what Canvas is for. Here's the distinction that matters: Traditional UIs are for using software. They serve end-users who interact with a finished product. Canvas is for shaping software while it runs. It serves developers and AI agents who are actively building, testing, and evolving a system. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never try to solve in a visible way. It's the observability layer, the control plane, the validation surface — all the things you need during development that disappear before production. Think of it this way: you wouldn't ship your debugger to users, but you absolutely need it while building. What We Built: A Multi-Agent Dev Canvas To demonstrate Canvas as a development runtime, we built a Multi-Agent Dev Canvas, a standalone GitHub Copilot Canvas extension (this repo, copilot-canvas-runtime) that treats an entire multi-agent system as a living, observable environment. The same pattern applies to any agent-driven system built on services such as Microsoft Foundry. The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas: a runtime observability and control plane where developers and AI agents collaborate to design, test, and evolve an agent-driven system in real time. The canvas provides four integrated panels: System View: See Your Agents Working Five specialised agents are displayed as live cards with real-time status indicators. Each card shows the agent's name, responsibility, current status (idle, running, done, or error), task count, and last action taken. When an agent is active, its card pulses blue. When it fails, it glows red. You see the system breathe. decompose_system — Breaks requirements into agent tasks execute_workflow — Coordinates agents to perform tasks validate_output — Runs evaluation tests and returns structured results update_system_design — Modifies architecture based on feedback track_state — Persists and updates system state over time Task Flows: Watch Work Move Through the Pipeline Below the agents, a flow graph visualises how tasks route between agents. When you decompose a system requirement like "Build an AI-powered code review agent," the canvas shows five components (pr-ingestion, code-analysis, feedback-generator, learning-loop, notification-service) flowing from the decomposer to the executor and designer agents. Each flow carries a status badge, pending, pass, or fail. Validation Panel: Continuous Testing, Not Afterthought Testing The validation panel displays structured test results with pass/fail badges and reasoning. When you run validation, each test case evaluates against specific criteria: ✅ "PR ingestion handles large diffs" — Meets criteria: process diffs over 5,000 lines without timeout ❌ "Feedback is actionable" — Failed: does not satisfy criteria that each suggestion includes a code fix ✅ "Learning loop converges" — Meets criteria: accept rate improves over 10 iterations ✅ "Notifications are non-blocking" — Meets criteria: delivery latency under 500ms This isn't a test runner you invoke separately, it's a validation surface embedded in the development loop. You see failures the moment they happen, in context, alongside the agents and flows that produced them. Live State Timeline: Every Mutation, Visible The right panel tracks every state change with timestamps. Decomposition events, workflow executions, validation runs, failure injections — all appear chronologically. This is the system's memory, visible to both the human developer and the AI agents working alongside them. Canvas as a Runtime: The Key Capabilities What makes Canvas a runtime rather than a display layer is that the agent can act through it. The canvas exposes seven agent-callable actions: Action What It Does decompose_system Accept requirements and components, generate task flows, update the system design execute_workflow Run pending tasks through the agent pipeline, produce artifacts validate_output Evaluate test cases against criteria, return structured pass/fail with reasoning update_system_design Modify the architecture description, constraints, or component list live track_state Read the full system state — agents, flows, validations, history, artifacts inject_failure Force an agent into an error state to test system adaptation pause_resume Toggle execution on and off The human developer can click Decompose, Execute, or Validate directly in the canvas. The AI agent can invoke the same actions programmatically. Both parties operate on the same surface, the same state, the same system, that's what makes Canvas collaborative in a way traditional tooling is not. Why This Matters: Canvas vs. Figma vs. Traditional UIs It helps to position Canvas against tools developers already know: Figma is Human-to-Human collaboration on design. Multiple people interact with the same visual surface, but nothing executes. It's a design tool. Traditional UIs are Human-to-System. Users interact with finished software through a polished interface. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System. It's a shared space where things actually execute. The developer steers, the AI acts, and the system evolves, all visible, all in real time. Canvas is collaborative in the Figma sense — it's a shared space, it's visual, multiple participants interact with the same surface. But unlike Figma, the participants include AI agents, and the surface isn't a mockup — it's a live system. How the Extension Works: Under the Hood A Canvas extension is a standard GitHub Copilot CLI extension, a single extension.mjs file that speaks JSON-RPC over stdio. The key components: 1. State Management Each canvas instance maintains its own system state: agents, task flows, validations, a state history timeline, artifacts, and the current system design. State is held in-memory per instance and pushed to the iframe via Server-Sent Events whenever it changes. function createInitialState() { return { agents: [ { id: "decomposer", name: "decompose_system", status: "idle", responsibility: "Break requirements into agent tasks" }, { id: "executor", name: "execute_workflow", status: "idle", responsibility: "Coordinate agents to perform tasks" }, // ... three more agents ], taskFlows: [], validations: [], stateHistory: [], artifacts: [], systemDesign: { description: "", constraints: [], components: [] }, execution: { paused: false, stepCount: 0 }, }; } 2. Real-Time Updates via Server-Sent Events The canvas runs a loopback HTTP server per instance. The iframe connects to an /events endpoint and receives state updates as they happen — no polling, no websocket complexity. if (req.url === "/events") { res.writeHead(200, { "Content-Type": "text/event-stream", "Cache-Control": "no-cache" }); clients.add(res); // Push current state immediately on connect res.write(`data: ${JSON.stringify(getState(instanceId))}\n\n`); } 3. Dual Interaction Model Every action is available through two paths. The human clicks a button in the iframe, which POSTs to the local server. The AI agent calls invoke_canvas_action through the SDK. Both paths mutate the same state and trigger the same SSE broadcast. Neither is privileged over the other. 4. Canvas Declaration The canvas registers with the Copilot SDK using createCanvas , declaring its identity, description, and all agent-callable actions with JSON Schema validation on inputs: createCanvas({ id: "multi-agent-dev", displayName: "Multi-Agent Dev Canvas", description: "Runtime observability and control plane for multi-agent development", actions: [ { name: "decompose_system", description: "Break requirements into agent tasks", inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: { requirements: { type: "string" }, components: { type: "array", items: { type: "string" } } }, required: ["requirements"] }, handler: async (ctx) => { /* ... */ }, }, // ... six more actions ], open: async (ctx) => { /* start server, return URL */ }, onClose: async (ctx) => { /* clean up */ }, }); Scenarios This Enables The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas supports four development scenarios that would be impossible with traditional tooling: 1. End-to-End Feature Design Tell the agent "Build an AI-powered code review system." Watch it decompose the requirement into five components, route tasks to specialist agents, execute the workflow, and validate the outputs, all visible in real time. Iterate by modifying constraints or components and re-running. 2. Live Agent Collaboration Observation See how agents hand off work to each other. The flow graph shows which agent produced what, which tasks are pending, and where bottlenecks form. This is the kind of observability you need when debugging multi-agent orchestration but would never expose in a production UI. 3. Fault Injection and Adaptation Testing Use inject_failure to force an agent into an error state. Watch how the system responds. Does the orchestrator recover? Do downstream tasks fail gracefully? This chaos-engineering approach, applied during development, visible in real time, catches integration failures before they reach production. 4. Validation-Driven Iteration Define test criteria, run validation, see which tests fail, update the system design, re-run. The validation panel isn't a separate CI pipeline, it's embedded in the development surface, creating a continuous feedback loop between design decisions and their measurable outcomes. Getting Started: Build Your Own Canvas Extension To create a Canvas extension in your own project: Read the SDK docs — Run extensions_manage({ operation: "guide" }) in GitHub Copilot CLI to get the canonical documentation paths. Scaffold — Run extensions_manage({ operation: "scaffold", kind: "canvas", name: "my-canvas", location: "project" }) to generate the boilerplate. Implement — Edit extension.mjs with your canvas logic: state model, actions, renderer HTML, and SSE updates. Reload — Run extensions_reload to activate your changes. Drive — Open with open_canvas , invoke actions with invoke_canvas_action , and iterate. The canvas extension lives in .github/extensions/your-canvas/extension.mjs for project-scoped extensions, or in your user extensions directory for personal use. No package.json needed, the github/copilot-sdk import is auto-resolved. Key Takeaways Canvas is a development runtime, not a UI framework. You don't build Canvas instead of your UI, you use Canvas to figure out, test, and evolve the UI and system before and during building it. Canvas solves problems your final UI should never expose. Agent observability, fault injection, live state mutation, validation feedback loops, these are development concerns, not user concerns. Canvas is Human-to-AI-to-System collaboration. Both the developer and the AI agent operate on the same surface, the same state, the same running system. It's Figma-like collaboration, but with AI agents, and things actually execute. Canvas turns debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous visual feedback loop. Instead of switching between an editor, a terminal, a test runner, and a monitoring dashboard, you have one surface where the system lives and evolves. Canvas extensions are lightweight. A single extension.mjs file, no dependencies, loopback HTTP server with SSE, the infrastructure gets out of the way so you can focus on the system you're building. The Bigger Picture Canvas redefines software development by shifting from writing static code to orchestrating living systems. Developers and AI co-create, observe, and evolve solutions in real time. Instead of building UIs for users, we build interactive environments for agents, turning debugging, testing, and execution into a continuous, visual feedback loop that accelerates innovation and brings ideas to production faster than ever. The Multi-Agent Dev Canvas we built here is one example. The pattern applies anywhere you're building agent-driven systems: AI orchestration, workflow automation, data pipelines, autonomous services. Anywhere you need to see, steer, and validate a complex system as it runs, that's where Canvas belongs. Resources copilot-canvas-runtime — this repository: the Multi-Agent Dev Canvas extension, scenario, and demo prompt GitHub Copilot Documentation — Official documentation for GitHub Copilot features Microsoft Foundry Documentation — Build and deploy AI agents with Microsoft Foundry
Lee_Stott
Jun 30, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
344Views
0likes
0Comments
MCP for Beginners: Why Every AI Engineer and Developer Should Learn the Model Context Protocol
If you have spent any time building with large language models in the last year, you have hit the same wall everyone hits: your model is brilliant at reasoning but blind to the real world. It cannot read your database, call your internal API, search your documents, or trigger a deployment unless you hand-write glue code for every single integration. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) exists to tear that wall down, and Microsoft's open-source MCP for Beginners curriculum (reachable via the short link https://aka.ms/mcp-for-beginners) is the most complete, hands-on way to learn it. This post explains what MCP is, walks through the latest updates to the course, shows real code, and makes the case for why MCP belongs on your learning roadmap right now. Whether you are an AI engineer shipping agents to production, a developer wiring tools into Copilot, or a student trying to build a standout portfolio project. What is MCP, and why does it matter? Think of MCP as a universal translator for AI applications. Just as a USB-C port lets you connect any peripheral to any laptop without a custom cable per device, MCP lets an AI model connect to any tool or data source through one standardized protocol. The course uses exactly this analogy, and it holds up well. Before MCP, integrations were an M × N problem: every one of your M AI applications needed bespoke code to talk to each of your N tools. MCP turns that into an M + N problem. Build a tool once as an MCP server, and any MCP-compatible client, Claude Desktop, VS Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, and many others — can use it immediately. The protocol is built on a clean client–server model with a small set of primitives: Tools — functions the model can call (query a database, send an email, run code). Resources — data the server exposes for context (files, records, documents). Prompts — reusable, parameterized prompt templates. Sampling — a server asking the client's LLM to generate a completion, enabling collaborative workflows. Elicitation — a server requesting structured input from the user mid-task. Roots — boundaries that tell a server which directories or resources it is allowed to operate on. Communication runs over JSON-RPC, with transports for local processes ( stdio ) and remote servers (streamable HTTP). That standardization is the whole point: write to the spec, and you interoperate with the entire ecosystem. What's new: the latest updates to the course The MCP for Beginners curriculum is actively maintained, and the public changelog reads like a release log for a living product. Here are the most important recent changes, drawn directly from that changelog. 1. Aligned to MCP Specification The biggest update: the entire curriculum has been validated against the current MCP Specification 2025-11-25 and the latest official SDKs. Stale references to older spec revisions (2025-03-26 and 2025-06-18) were corrected across the security, transport, real-time search, sampling, and stdio-server modules, with links repointed to the canonical modelcontextprotocol.io spec paths. A gap analysis confirmed the course already covers every primitive introduced or expanded in the latest spec: Sampling — covered in lesson 3.14 and Advanced Topics. Elicitation (including URL mode) — in Core Concepts and Protocol Features. Roots — in the Introduction, Core Concepts, and Root Contexts. Tasks (experimental, long-running operations) — in Core Concepts and Protocol Features. Tool Annotations ( readOnlyHint / destructiveHint ) — in Core Concepts and Protocol Features. 2. Samples validated against current SDKs Code that does not run is worse than no code at all, so the maintainers re-validated the core samples: TypeScript: @modelcontextprotocol/sdk resolved to 1.29.0 ; a tsc --noEmit type-check passed with no errors — the McpServer and StdioServerTransport APIs remain valid. Python: validated in an isolated virtual environment with mcp[cli] (1.27.2); FastMCP.list_tools() correctly returned the sample add and subtract tools. SDK version pins across labs were bumped (for example mcp>=1.26.0 ) and lockfiles regenerated so every sample tracks the current release. 3. A serious security pass Security is treated as a first-class concern, not an afterthought. A full audit across every dependency manifest and the sample source code was run, and npm audit now reports 0 vulnerabilities in every audited directory. Highlights: Transitive npm advisories (in the MCP Inspector dev tool, the OpenAI client, and the SDK) were remediated by bumping @modelcontextprotocol/inspector to 0.22.0 and pinning a patched shell-quote . A real code-level command-injection fix (OWASP A03): an open_in_vscode tool that used subprocess.run(..., shell=True) was rewritten to launch the resolved executable directly with no shell — closing a metacharacter-injection vector. Python dependencies were audited with pip-audit , and a vulnerable transitive werkzeug was pinned to a patched >=3.1.6 . For anyone learning to ship agents, this is gold: the course demonstrates the whole secure-development loop, not just the happy path. 4. New lessons and a growing curriculum The curriculum keeps expanding with practical, modern lessons: 5.17 Adversarial Multi-Agent Reasoning — two agents argue opposite sides of a question using shared MCP tools ( web_search + run_python ), judged by a third agent. Includes a Mermaid architecture diagram, orchestrators in Python, TypeScript, and C#, and use cases like hallucination detection, threat modeling, and API design review. 3.12 MCP Hosts — configuration for Claude Desktop, VS Code, Cursor, Cline, and Windsurf, with JSON templates and a transport comparison table. 3.13 MCP Inspector — a debugging guide for testing tools, resources, and prompts. 4.1 Pagination — cursor-based pagination patterns in Python, TypeScript, and Java. 5.16 Protocol Features — progress notifications, request cancellation, resource templates, and lifecycle management. 5. Microsoft product rebranding Content was updated to reflect Microsoft's rebranding: Azure AI Foundry → Microsoft Foundry, and the AI Toolkit (AITK) → Microsoft Foundry Toolkit Extension for VS Code. If you have seen older tutorials referencing the previous names, the curriculum is now current. Your first MCP server: see how little code it takes The course's "first server" lesson builds a simple calculator. Here is the shape of a minimal MCP server in Python using FastMCP , which mirrors the validated sample in the repo. Notice how the protocol plumbing disappears — you just decorate functions. # server.py — a minimal MCP server with two tools from mcp.server.fastmcp import FastMCP # Name your server; this identifies it to MCP clients mcp = FastMCP("Calculator") @mcp.tool() def add(a: int, b: int) -> int: """Add two numbers and return the result.""" return a + b @mcp.tool() def subtract(a: int, b: int) -> int: """Subtract b from a and return the result.""" return a - b if __name__ == "__main__": # Run over stdio so local hosts (VS Code, Claude Desktop) can connect mcp.run() The same idea in TypeScript, using the official SDK validated at version 1.29.0 : // server.ts — minimal MCP server in TypeScript import { McpServer } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/mcp.js"; import { StdioServerTransport } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/stdio.js"; import { z } from "zod"; const server = new McpServer({ name: "Calculator", version: "1.0.0" }); // Register a tool with a typed input schema server.tool( "add", { a: z.number(), b: z.number() }, async ({ a, b }) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: String(a + b) }], }) ); // Connect over stdio and start listening const transport = new StdioServerTransport(); await server.connect(transport); That is a complete, runnable server. The docstrings and schemas matter: MCP exposes them to the model so it knows when and how to call each tool. Clear descriptions are effectively prompt engineering for your tools — a common pitfall is leaving them vague, which leads to the model misusing or ignoring the tool. Connecting it in VS Code Once your server runs, an MCP host connects to it. A typical VS Code / host configuration looks like this: { "servers": { "calculator": { "command": "python", "args": ["server.py"] } } } Lesson 3.12 (MCP Hosts) covers the equivalent JSON for Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, and Windsurf, and lesson 3.13 shows how to use the MCP Inspector to test your tools before wiring them into a host — the single best debugging habit you can build early. How the course is structured The curriculum is organized as a progressive journey with hands-on code in C#, Java, JavaScript, Python, Rust, and TypeScript. It is grouped into phases: Foundations (Modules 0–2): Introduction, Core Concepts, and Security. Building (Module 3): Getting Started — 15 lessons covering your first server and client, LLM clients, VS Code integration, stdio and HTTP streaming, testing, deployment, auth, hosts, the Inspector, sampling, and MCP Apps. Growing (Modules 4–5): Practical Implementation and Advanced Topics — 17 advanced lessons including Azure integration, OAuth2, Entra ID auth, scaling, multi-modality, context engineering, custom transports, and adversarial multi-agent reasoning. Mastery (Modules 6–11): Community Contributions, Lessons from Early Adoption, Best Practices, Case Studies, a Microsoft Foundry Toolkit workshop, and an end-to-end 13-lab PostgreSQL capstone. That final module is the standout for portfolio building: a complete, production-flavored path that takes you from architecture and row-level security through database design, a FastMCP server, semantic search with pgvector and Azure OpenAI, testing, Docker deployment to Azure Container Apps, and monitoring with Application Insights. Why developers should learn MCP now For AI engineers MCP is becoming the default integration layer for agents. Instead of re-implementing tool calling for every framework, you write to one open protocol and your tools work everywhere. The advanced modules — sampling, roots, elicitation, scaling, routing, and adversarial multi-agent patterns — are exactly the techniques you need to move agents from demo to production. For developers MCP is already wired into tools you use daily: VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Claude Desktop, Cursor, and more. Learning to build an MCP server means you can expose your systems — internal APIs, databases, CI/CD — to AI assistants safely. The security-first approach in the course (OAuth2, Entra ID, RBAC, dependency auditing) teaches you to do this the right way from day one. For students MCP is a rare opportunity to learn a technology while it is still early, with a free, beginner-friendly, Microsoft-maintained curriculum and code in six languages. The 13-lab capstone alone is a genuine portfolio project. And with content translated into 50+ languages, the barrier to entry is low no matter where you are. Responsible and secure by design A recurring theme worth calling out: the course does not treat security and governance as optional extras. It models real practices you should carry into your own work: Least privilege via roots — constrain what a server can touch. Tool annotations — mark tools readOnlyHint or destructiveHint so clients can warn users before destructive actions. No shells for user input — the command-injection fix is a textbook example of why you never pass untrusted input through a shell. Dependency hygiene — audit with npm audit and pip-audit , and pin patched releases. Proper auth — dedicated lessons on OAuth2 and Microsoft Entra ID. Key takeaways MCP standardizes how AI connects to tools and data, turning a combinatorial integration problem into a simple, reusable one. The course is current, validated against MCP Specification 2025-11-25 with SDKs at TypeScript 1.29.0 and Python mcp 1.27.2 . Samples actually run, and the repo demonstrates a full secure-development loop with 0 reported vulnerabilities after auditing. It is broad and deep: from a 10-line calculator server to a 13-lab production capstone, in six languages. It is the fastest credible path to MCP fluency for AI engineers, developers, and students alike. Get started today Open the course: https://aka.ms/mcp-for-beginners (redirects to the GitHub repository). Fork and clone it — use a sparse checkout to skip translations for a faster download: git clone --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/microsoft/mcp-for-beginners.git cd mcp-for-beginners git sparse-checkout set --no-cone "/*" "!translations" "!translated_images" Build your first server with lesson 3.1 in your language of choice. Debug it with the MCP Inspector, then connect it in VS Code. Go deep with the 13-lab database capstone, and read the official spec at modelcontextprotocol.io. Track what's new in the changelog and join the community discussions. MCP is quietly becoming the connective tissue of the AI ecosystem. The earlier you learn it, the more leverage you will have — and Microsoft's MCP for Beginners is the clearest on-ramp available. Star the repo, build a server this week, and start connecting your AI to the world.
Lee_Stott
Jun 28, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
763Views
0likes
1Comment
How Many Copies of Each Layer Does Your Container Registry Actually Need?
Authors: Payal Mahesh and Vicky Lin Azure Container Registry team: Jeanine Burke and Johnson Shi Introduction It's Monday morning. You spin up a fresh 1,000-node AKS cluster for a big training run or a fleet-wide rollout. Every node reaches for the same large container image at the same instant. What actually happens in the next ten minutes - and whether your pods reach Ready in 9 minutes or 14 - turns out to depend on a single number you've probably never thought about: how many copies of each image layer exist behind your registry. At the surface, you see a single capacity number for your registry size - but behind that abstraction, Azure Container Registry maintains copies of your layer data to optimize pull performance. That number of copies directly determines the read throughput available per layer. Each copy can serve requests independently, so distributing the layer across storage allows it to be read in parallel. More copies mean more independent readers - and higher aggregate throughput when thousands of nodes pull at once. The intuitive answer is that more is better: add copies, get faster pulls. When we actually tested it at 1,000-node scale, the truth turned out to be more interesting: A few extra copies helped a little. A moderate number helped a lot, and eliminated storage throttling entirely. A large number helped no more than the moderate one. A huge number actually made pulls slower again. Think of it like opening checkout lanes at a grocery store. Opening a few more lanes when the store is slammed cuts the line dramatically. Past a certain point, though, extra lanes barely help, because by then it's the customers, not the cashiers, who are the bottleneck. And open too many? Now the staff is spread thin and tripping over each other, and the line moves worse than it did at the sweet spot. This post walks through what we measured, why the curve bends where it does, and what we're building next so finding that sweet spot isn't something anyone has to do by hand. Key Takeaways There's a sweet spot, not a slope. Adding copies per layer cut pod-startup P99 by 27% and raised P50 per-node egress throughput by 244%, but only up to a point. Past that, the returns vanish, and far past it, latency actually regresses. Storage throttling is the real enemy. The win comes from spreading load across enough storage backends that no single backend gets pinned at its egress ceiling. Once throttling is gone, more copies stop helping. Storage scale alone has a ceiling. Even at the sweet spot, the per-backend egress limit caps total throughput. The next jump in performance has to come from somewhere else, which is exactly what we're building (see What's Next). This isn't something customers should need to manage. We're building a proactive, on-demand storage scaling capability that automatically grows the footprint before throttling happens and shrinks it back when the burst is over. A quick bit of background Within a region, the layer data behind your container images is backed by Azure storage. The number of copies ACR maintains per layer determines how many independent storage backends a concurrent-pull workload can spread its reads across. That's what matters, because each backend has a finite egress ceiling. Once concurrent reads against one backend get close to that ceiling, requests start getting throttled, and your pulls slow down in proportion. The principle is simple: more copies per layer means more backends serving the same data, which means more total egress headroom and fewer throttled requests. What we wanted data on was how many, and where it stops helping. How we tested We ran a controlled series of large-scale pull tests against ACR Premium on a roughly 1,000-node cluster, with every node pulling the same large image cold at the same time (no local cache on any node). The only thing we changed between runs was the number of per-layer copies behind a single registry endpoint. Everything else, including rate limits, the image, node count, and concurrency, stayed constant. For each run we measured pod-startup latency (P50/P90/P99), end-to-end storage read latency, egress throughput distributions (P50-P99.9), and storage throttling events. Pod-startup latency is our headline metric, because it's the one number that reflects the actual customer experience no matter where the bottleneck happens to be. Per-node egress throughput matters too, though. It tells you directly how much pull bandwidth ACR delivers to your fleet, and it's usually what customers have in mind when they ask how much faster extra copies will make their pulls. We report egress as a distribution rather than a single average, since per-request and per-time-window views can tell very different stories about the same set of pulls. These are observations from a single controlled environment, not a service guarantee. Absolute numbers will move with image size, node count, layer composition, network topology, and concurrency. What we found We tested five configurations, sweeping from a low baseline number of per-layer copies up to a very high one. We name them by relative copy count rather than exact instance counts: Baseline: the lowest level, our reference point. Low: a modest step up from Baseline. Mid: a meaningful step up from Low. Higher: a further step up from Mid. Very high: the largest configuration we tested, well above Higher. Here are the numbers. All percent changes are relative to Baseline. Configuration Pod startup P50 Pod startup P90 Pod startup P99 Storage throttling events Peak per-backend egress Baseline (fewest copies) 9m 36s 11m 0s 14m 16s Many; all top backends above the egress ceiling Highest Low 9m 27s (−2%) 10m 14s (−7%) 12m 59s (−9%) Some; one backend still above the ceiling High Mid 9m 25s (−2%) 9m 45s (−11%) 10m 22s (−27%) Zero Below the ceiling Higher 9m 20s (−3%) 9m 37s (−13%) 10m 22s (−27%) Zero Well below the ceiling Very high 9m 28s (−1%) 10m 31s (−4%) 13m 48s (−3%) Zero Lowest Look at the P99 pod-startup column from top to bottom: 14m 16s, 12m 59s, 10m 22s, 10m 22s, 13m 48s. It improves, flattens out, then climbs back up. Three things explain that shape: 1. The win: Throttling falls off a cliff at the Mid configuration As we added copies per layer, per-backend egress fell and storage-side throttling decreased. At the Mid configuration, throttling errors hit zero, and they stayed at zero for every configuration above it. The upside isn't just that the errors went away, though. It's raw pull bandwidth. At the Mid sweet spot, the typical node saw its P50 egress throughput jump 244% over Baseline. With load spread across enough copies, each node pulled its layers off storage much faster, not just without stalling. For a workload owner, that's the difference between watching pods come up in a steady stream and watching them stall for tens of seconds at a time while throttling clears. Same image, same node count, same registry, very different experience. To put it in concrete terms: if your team runs a daily AI training kickoff that needs all 1,000 nodes pulling before the job can start, this is the difference between starting on time and starting four minutes late every day. Over a quarter of training runs, that adds up. 2. The surprise: more copies made pulls slower This is the finding that genuinely surprised us. Going from Higher to Very high, the largest configuration we tested, cost us 3 minutes and 26 seconds at P99: 10m 22s climbing back up to 13m 48s. That gave back almost the entire benefit we'd built up over the previous four configurations. Tail storage-read latency at Very high actually came out worse than Baseline. The Very high run is where the wheels came off, and the reason is the trade-off underneath. Once storage throttling is gone, more copies stop buying you anything, and the cost of fanning reads across that many backends starts to take over. The throughput distribution shows it clearly. P50 and P75 throughput had been climbing steadily and getting smoother through Mid and Higher, then dropped sharply at Very high while the peak P99/P99.9 spikes came back. Spread the same load across too many backends and it fragments into smaller, less consistent bursts. The takeaway is that "more is better" stops being true past the sweet spot, and the failure mode is quiet. You won't see throttling errors. You'll just see your pulls get slower. 3. What we didn't expect: at few copies, the hottest backend is what hurts you At the lowest copy counts, pull traffic wasn't spread evenly across the underlying storage footprint. Some backends absorbed far more traffic than others. As we added copies, that distribution evened out and the hottest backends cooled down. The implication is sharp. You can saturate the busiest backend, and trigger throttling, even when the total headroom across all your backends is large in aggregate. What matters is the load on the hottest backend, not the average. That's exactly the failure mode that demand-driven, proactive scaling (described below) is meant to head off before it happens. So how should you think about this? You don't size copies yourself; ACR manages the storage footprint behind your registry. Still, it helps to understand what moves the sweet spot, because the shape of your own workload is what decides where it lands. The bigger your worst-case concurrent burst (more nodes, larger images, higher concurrency), the more copies per layer it takes to keep pulls off the throttling ceiling, and the further out the sweet spot sits. Smaller workloads may already be sitting on the flat part of the curve. One thing is worth saying plainly. The storage footprint underneath is managed by ACR and shared across many registries, so there's no fixed, private storage budget that maps one-to-one to your workload. The sweet spot isn't a number you compute and provision; it's a behavior the platform has to land on for you, which is exactly why we're moving toward demand-driven scaling that handles it automatically. That's what brings us to what we're building next. What's next: proactive, on-demand storage scaling and a caching layer The fixed-copy tests above answer the question "how many should the ACR system provision?" but they assume a single, static answer. Real workloads aren't static. A 1,000-node burst happens at deploy time, not at 3 a.m. on a Tuesday. And no matter how many copies are provisioned, the per-backend storage ceiling still bounds peak deliverable throughput. So we're investing along two complementary directions. 1. Proactive, demand-driven storage scaling We're building a capability that adjusts the number of per-layer copies automatically based on real-time pull demand: Proactive, not reactive. The system scales the storage footprint before concurrent pull pressure pushes any single backend near the throttling threshold, so throttling is prevented before it forms rather than cleaned up after the fact. On-demand scale-out. The footprint expands automatically as sustained pull demand grows. Scale-in when demand subsides. The footprint contracts so you're not paying for steady-state capacity you only needed during a burst. Tiering for cold content. Long-tail, rarely-pulled content can sit on colder storage, so the redundant footprint of frequently-pulled content doesn't pay full hot-storage cost everywhere. The benefit to customers is straightforward: smoother pulls under burst, higher delivered throughput on average, no permanent over-provisioning, and no manual re-tuning as workloads grow. 2. A caching layer to absorb burst beyond the storage ceiling Even a perfectly scaled storage footprint runs into the per-backend egress ceiling at extreme scale. To push past it, we're investing in a caching layer in the registry service that absorbs burst traffic before it ever reaches storage. A pull surge that hits the same set of layers, which is the common case for fleet-wide deployments, can be served largely from cache. That takes a lot of load off any single storage backend and complements the storage scaling above. We'll share results from this work in follow-up posts. If you have questions about scaling ACR for your workload, or about how we measure storage performance, reach out on the Azure Container Registry GitHub repository. Note: All results in this post are based on controlled internal testing configurations and are intended to illustrate general scaling behavior rather than prescribe exact configurations.
payalmahesh
Jun 22, 2026 Place Apps on Azure Blog
223Views
0likes
0Comments
Mastering Query Fields in Azure AI Document Intelligence with C#
Introduction Azure AI Document Intelligence simplifies document data extraction, with features like query fields enabling targeted data retrieval. However, using these features with the C# SDK can be tricky. This guide highlights a real-world issue, provides a corrected implementation, and shares best practices for efficient usage. Use case scenario During the cause of Azure AI Document Intelligence software engineering code tasks or review, many developers encountered an error while trying to extract fields like "FullName," "CompanyName," and "JobTitle" using `AnalyzeDocumentAsync`: The error might be similar to Inner Error: The parameter urlSource or base64Source is required. This is a challenge referred to as parameter errors and SDK changes. Most problematic code are looks like below in C#: BinaryData data = BinaryData.FromBytes(Content); var queryFields = new List<string> { "FullName", "CompanyName", "JobTitle" }; var operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, modelId, data, "1-2", queryFields: queryFields, features: new List<DocumentAnalysisFeature> { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields } ); One of the reasons this failed was that the developer was using `Azure.AI.DocumentIntelligence v1.0.0`, where `base64Source` and `urlSource` must be handled internally. Because the older examples using `AnalyzeDocumentContent` no longer apply and leading to errors. Practical Solution Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions. Alternative Method using manual JSON Payload. Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions The correct method involves using AnalyzeDocumentOptions, which streamlines the request construction using the below steps: Prepare the document content: BinaryData data = BinaryData.FromBytes(Content); Create AnalyzeDocumentOptions: var analyzeOptions = new AnalyzeDocumentOptions(modelId, data) { Pages = "1-2", Features = { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields }, QueryFields = { "FullName", "CompanyName", "JobTitle" } }; - `modelId`: Your trained model’s ID. - `Pages`: Specify pages to analyze (e.g., "1-2"). - `Features`: Enable `QueryFields`. - `QueryFields`: Define which fields to extract. Run the analysis: Operation<AnalyzeResult> operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, analyzeOptions ); AnalyzeResult result = operation.Value; The reason this works: The SDK manages `base64Source` automatically. This approach matches the latest SDK standards. It results in cleaner, more maintainable code. Alternative method using manual JSON payload For advanced use cases where more control over the request is needed, you can manually create the JSON payload. For an example: var queriesPayload = new { queryFields = new[] { new { key = "FullName" }, new { key = "CompanyName" }, new { key = "JobTitle" } } }; string jsonPayload = JsonSerializer.Serialize(queriesPayload); BinaryData requestData = BinaryData.FromString(jsonPayload); var operation = await client.AnalyzeDocumentAsync( WaitUntil.Completed, modelId, requestData, "1-2", features: new List<DocumentAnalysisFeature> { DocumentAnalysisFeature.QueryFields } ); When to use the above: Custom request formats Non-standard data source integration Key points to remember Breaking changes exist between preview versions and v1.0.0 by checking the SDK version. Prefer `AnalyzeDocumentOptions` for simpler, error-free integration by using built-In classes. Ensure your content is wrapped in `BinaryData` or use a direct URL for correct document input: Conclusion Using AnalyzeDocumentOptions provides a cleaner and more reliable way to work with query fields in Azure AI Document Intelligence using C#. By aligning with the latest SDK approach, developers can simplify implementation, reduce common errors, and improve code maintainability. Keeping up with SDK enhancements and recommended practices ensures more accurate and efficient document data extraction. As Azure AI capabilities continue to evolve, adopting modern integration patterns will help you build scalable and future-ready document processing solutions with greater confidence. Reference Official AnalyzeDocumentAsync Documentation. Official Azure SDK documentation. Azure Document Intelligence C# SDK support add-on query field.
sasina
Jun 19, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
488Views
0likes
0Comments
Microsoft Leads a New Era of Software Supply Chain Transparency
Microsoft announces the general availability of Microsoft’s Signing Transparency (MST) – a first-of-its-kind capability that brings unprecedented visibility and trust to our software supply chain. With this release, Microsoft is leading the industry by recording the build of critical cloud services into a publicly readable and verifiable SCITT standard (Supply Chain Integrity, Transparency, and Trust) compliant ledger. This means every production software build for in scope services like Azure Attestation and Azure Managed HSM (Hardware Security Module), Azure confidential ledger, Microsoft Signing Transparency itself (and others over time) – is now logged in an immutable, tamper-evident record. Only builds that are in the MST ledger are deployed to production; this gives customers confidence that the supply chain for these critical services can be audited at anytime. Notably, the MST ledger is fully open source and built to align with the emerging IETF SCITT standard. By embracing SCITT’s principles and open protocols, Microsoft ensures that MST not only secures our own ecosystem but also contributes to a broader industry movement toward standardized supply chain transparency. The open-source MST ledger serves as a verifiable trust anchor that any organization or researcher can inspect, audit, or even integrate with their own tooling. MST itself meets the highest levels of transparency, backed by a tamper-proof confidential ledger, open-source, and independently verified. Specifically, we are making the foundation of our trust model transparent and accessible to everyone – reinforcing that trust must be earned through proof, not just promises. This launch marks a major milestone in our commitment to Zero Trust principles, extending “never trust, always verify” all the way into the build itself. Building on a public preview introduced late last year, MST’s general availability delivers verifiable transparency at the software level. It transforms traditional code signing with an additive trust layer that is accessible via an open verification model. Every new software update is accompanied by a publicly auditable proof of integrity, enabling security teams to proactively confirm that each update is authentic and unaltered. To help organizations get the most out of this capability, we are also introducing a free tool to explore the contents – Ledger Explorer – an offline tool that allows security teams to examine MST ledger entries, verify cryptographic proofs, and even validate the ledger’s integrity independently. This tool, combined with MST’s open design, ensures that every Microsoft customer – and the broader community – can hold us accountable in real time for the software we run on their behalf. Key Benefits of Microsoft’s Signing Transparency (MST) Verified Code Integrity – Every software release is cryptographically logged in MST’s ledgers. This makes each build tamper-evident and traceable. If an attacker attempts to inject malicious code or sign an unauthorized update, it will be evident through the well-defined validation step built into the SCITT standard. Organizations gain the assurance that code integrity can be independently confirmed at any time. Independent Verification & Zero Trust – MST enables customers and auditors to verify software authenticity on their own, without having to solely rely on vendor attestations. For each update, Microsoft provides a transparency “receipt” (proof of logging) that you can use to prove the update was officially published and unaltered. This fosters a “don’t just trust, verify” approach, empowering security teams to double-check everything running in their environment aligns with what Microsoft intended. Audit-Trail & Compliance – The transparency ledger creates a permanent, auditable timeline of code deployments. Every entry is a record of what was released and when, backed by cryptographic proofs. This simplifies compliance reporting and accelerates forensic analysis. In the event of an incident, you can quickly audit the ledger to see if any unexpected code was introduced. For highly regulated industries, MST offers concrete evidence of software integrity and policy compliance over time. Leadership & Open Standards – We are delivering real transparency now, encouraging a future where all critical software is released with verifiable integrity. MST’s open source implementation and SCITT-compliant design exemplify our commitment to openness and collaboration. We believe widespread adoption of these standards will strengthen supply chain security for everyone, making trust verification a universal practice. Next Steps Microsoft’s Signing Transparency is more than a new security feature and shapes the advances in trust technology. As threats grow more sophisticated, we must evolve the way we assure our customers about the software they depend on. With MST now generally available, we are leading by example: proving that it is possible to open up the traditionally opaque process of software deployment and turn it into a source of strength and trust, i.e. empowering each person with verifiable transparency. We invite the industry to join us on this journey and get started by reading the documentation and exploring Ledger Explorer today! Together, by embracing transparency and open standards, we can turn “trust but verify” from a slogan into an everyday reality for digital infrastructure.
ShubhraS
Jun 19, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
150Views
0likes
0Comments
Using Keycloak with Azure AD to integrate AKS Cluster authentication process
Integrating Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) with Keycloak through Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) as an intermediary leverages Azure AD’s support for OpenID Connect (OIDC) to handle authentication and authorization. This integration enhances security, streamlines user management, and simplifies the authentication process for users accessing the AKS cluster.
sasina
Jun 18, 2026 Place Microsoft Developer Community Blog
28KViews
2likes
1Comment