Building Interactive Agent UIs with AG-UI and Microsoft Agent Framework
Introduction Picture this: You've built an AI agent that analyzes financial data. A user uploads a quarterly report and asks: "What are the top three expense categories?" Behind the scenes, your agent parses the spreadsheet, aggregates thousands of rows, and generates visualizations. All in 20 seconds. But the user? They see a loading spinner. Nothing else. No "reading file" message, no "analyzing data" indicator, no hint that progress is being made. They start wondering: Is it frozen? Should I refresh? The problem isn't the agent's capabilities - it's the communication gap between the agent running on the backend and the user interface. When agents perform multi-step reasoning, call external APIs, or execute complex tool chains, users deserve to see what's happening. They need streaming updates, intermediate results, and transparent progress indicators. Yet most agent frameworks force developers to choose between simple request/response patterns or building custom solutions to stream updates to their UIs. This is where AG-UI comes in. AG-UI is a fairly new event-based protocol that standardizes how agents communicate with user interfaces. Instead of every framework and development team inventing their own streaming solution, AG-UI provides a shared vocabulary of structured events that work consistently across different agent implementations. When an agent starts processing, calls a tool, generates text, or encounters an error, the UI receives explicit, typed events in real time. The beauty of AG-UI is its framework-agnostic design. While this blog post demonstrates integration with Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF), the same AG-UI protocol works with LangGraph, CrewAI, or any other compliant framework. Write your UI code once, and it works with any AG-UI-compliant backend. (Note: MAF supports both Python and .NET - this blog post focuses on the Python implementation.) TL;DR The Problem: Users don't get real-time updates while AI agents work behind the scenes - no progress indicators, no transparency into tool calls, and no insight into what's happening. The Solution: AG-UI is an open, event-based protocol that standardizes real-time communication between AI agents and user interfaces. Instead of each development team and framework inventing custom streaming solutions, AG-UI provides a shared vocabulary of structured events (like TOOL_CALL_START, TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT, RUN_FINISHED) that work across any compliant framework. Key Benefits: Framework-agnostic - Write UI code once, works with LangGraph, Microsoft Agent Framework, CrewAI, and more Real-time observability - See exactly what your agent is doing as it happens Server-Sent Events - Built on standard HTTP for universal compatibility Protocol-managed state - No manual conversation history tracking In This Post: You'll learn why AG-UI exists, how it works, and build a complete working application using Microsoft Agent Framework with Python - from server setup to client implementation. What You'll Learn This blog post walks through: Why AG-UI exists - how agent-UI communication has evolved and what problems current approaches couldn't solve How the protocol works - the key design choices that make AG-UI simple, reliable, and framework-agnostic Protocol architecture - the generic components and how AG-UI integrates with agent frameworks Building an AG-UI application - a complete working example using Microsoft Agent Framework with server, client, and step-by-step setup Understanding events - what happens under the hood when your agent runs and how to observe it Thinking in events - how building with AG-UI differs from traditional APIs, and what benefits this brings Making the right choice - when AG-UI is the right fit for your project and when alternatives might be better Estimated reading time: 15 minutes Who this is for: Developers building AI agents who want to provide real-time feedback to users, and teams evaluating standardized approaches to agent-UI communication To appreciate why AG-UI matters, we need to understand the journey that led to its creation. Let's trace how agent-UI communication has evolved through three distinct phases. The Evolution of Agent-UI Communication AI agents have become more capable over time. As they evolved, the way they communicated with user interfaces had to evolve as well. Here's how this evolution unfolded. Phase 1: Simple Request/Response In the early days of AI agent development, the interaction model was straightforward: send a question, wait for an answer, display the result. This synchronous approach mirrored traditional API calls and worked fine for simple scenarios. # Simple, but limiting response = agent.run("What's the weather in Paris?") display(response) # User waits... and waits... Works for: Quick queries that complete in seconds, simple Q&A interactions where immediate feedback and interactivity aren't critical. Breaks down: When agents need to call multiple tools, perform multi-step reasoning, or process complex queries that take 30+ seconds. Users see nothing but a loading spinner, with no insight into what's happening or whether the agent is making progress. This creates a poor user experience and makes it impossible to show intermediate results or allow user intervention. Recognizing these limitations, development teams began experimenting with more sophisticated approaches. Phase 2: Custom Streaming Solutions As agents became more sophisticated, teams recognized the need for incremental feedback and interactivity. Rather than waiting for the complete response, they implemented custom streaming solutions to show partial results as they became available. # Every team invents their own format for chunk in agent.stream("What's the weather?"): display(chunk) # But what about tool calls? Errors? Progress? This was a step forward for building interactive agent UIs, but each team solved the problem differently. Also, different frameworks had incompatible approaches - some streamed only text tokens, others sent structured JSON, and most provided no visibility into critical events like tool calls or errors. The problem: No standardization across frameworks - client code that works with LangGraph won't work with Crew AI, requiring separate implementations for each agent backend Each implementation handles tool calls differently - some send nothing during tool execution, others send unstructured messages Complex state management - clients must track conversation history, manage reconnections, and handle edge cases manually The industry needed a better solution - a common protocol that could work across all frameworks while maintaining the benefits of streaming. Phase 3: Standardized Protocol (AG-UI) AG-UI emerged as a response to the fragmentation problem. Instead of each framework and development team inventing their own streaming solution, AG-UI provides a shared vocabulary of events that work consistently across different agent implementations. # Standardized events everyone understands async for event in agent.run_stream("What's the weather?"): if event.type == "TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT": display_text(event.delta) elif event.type == "TOOL_CALL_START": show_tool_indicator(event.tool_name) elif event.type == "TOOL_CALL_RESULT": show_tool_result(event.result) The key difference is structured observability. Rather than guessing what the agent is doing from unstructured text, clients receive explicit events for every stage of execution: when the agent starts, when it generates text, when it calls a tool, when that tool completes, and when the entire run finishes. What's different: A standardized vocabulary of event types, complete observability into agent execution, and framework-agnostic clients that work with any AG-UI-compliant backend. You write your UI code once, and it works whether the backend uses Microsoft Agent Framework, LangGraph, or any other framework that speaks AG-UI. Now that we've seen why AG-UI emerged and what problems it solves, let's examine the specific design decisions that make the protocol work. These choices weren't arbitrary - each one addresses concrete challenges in building reliable, observable agent-UI communication. The Design Decisions Behind AG-UI Why Server-Sent Events (SSE)? Aspect WebSockets SSE (AG-UI) Complexity Bidirectional Unidirectional (simpler) Firewall/Proxy Sometimes blocked Standard HTTP Reconnection Manual implementation Built-in browser support Use case Real-time games, chat Agent responses (one-way) For agent interactions, you typically only need server→client communication, making SSE a simpler choice. SSE solves the transport problem - how events travel from server to client. But once connected, how does the protocol handle conversation state across multiple interactions? Why Protocol-Managed Threads? # Without protocol threads (client manages): conversation_history = [] conversation_history.append({"role": "user", "content": message}) response = agent.complete(conversation_history) conversation_history.append({"role": "assistant", "content": response}) # Complex, error-prone, doesn't work with multiple clients # With AG-UI (protocol manages): thread = agent.get_new_thread() # Server creates and manages thread agent.run_stream(message, thread=thread) # Server maintains context # Simple, reliable, shareable across clients With transport and state management handled, the final piece is the actual messages flowing through the connection. What information should the protocol communicate, and how should it be structured? Why Standardized Event Types? Instead of parsing unstructured text, clients get typed events: RUN_STARTED - Agent begins (start loading UI) TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT - Text chunk (stream to user) TOOL_CALL_START - Tool invoked (show "searching...", "calculating...") TOOL_CALL_RESULT - Tool finished (show result, update UI) RUN_FINISHED - Complete (hide loading) This lets UIs react intelligently without custom parsing logic. Now that we understand the protocol's design choices, let's see how these pieces fit together in a complete system. Architecture Overview Here's how the components interact: The communication between these layers relies on a well-defined set of event types. Here are the core events that flow through the SSE connection: Core Event Types AG-UI provides a standardized set of event types to describe what's happening during an agent's execution: RUN_STARTED - agent begins execution TEXT_MESSAGE_START, TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT, TEXT_MESSAGE_END - streaming segments of text TOOL_CALL_START, TOOL_CALL_ARGS, TOOL_CALL_END, TOOL_CALL_RESULT - tool execution events RUN_FINISHED - agent has finished execution RUN_ERROR - error information This model lets the UI update as the agent runs, rather than waiting for the final response. The generic architecture above applies to any AG-UI implementation. Now let's see how this translates to Microsoft Agent Framework. AG-UI with Microsoft Agent Framework While AG-UI is framework-agnostic, this blog post demonstrates integration with Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) using Python. MAF is available in both Python and .NET, giving you flexibility to build AG-UI applications in your preferred language. Understanding how MAF implements the protocol will help you build your own applications or work with other compliant frameworks. Integration Architecture The Microsoft Agent Framework integration involves several specialized layers that handle protocol translation and execution orchestration: Understanding each layer: FastAPI Endpoint - Handles HTTP requests and establishes SSE connections for streaming AgentFrameworkAgent - Protocol wrapper that translates between AG-UI events and Agent Framework operations Orchestrators - Manage execution flow, coordinate tool calling sequences, and handle state transitions ChatAgent - Your agent implementation with instructions, tools, and business logic ChatClient - Interface to the underlying language model (Azure OpenAI, OpenAI, or other providers) The good news? When you call add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint, all the middleware layers are configured automatically. You simply provide your ChatAgent, and the integration handles protocol translation, event streaming, and state management behind the scenes. Now that we understand both the protocol architecture and the Microsoft Agent Framework integration, let's build a working application. Hands-On: Building Your First AG-UI Application This section demonstrates how to build an AG-UI server and client using Microsoft Agent Framework and FastAPI. Prerequisites Before building your first AG-UI application, ensure you have: Python 3.10 or later installed Basic understanding of async/await patterns in Python Azure CLI installed and authenticated (az login) Azure OpenAI service endpoint and deployment configured (setup guide) Cognitive Services OpenAI Contributor role for your Azure OpenAI resource You'll also need to install the AG-UI integration package: pip install agent-framework-ag-ui --pre This automatically installs agent-framework-core, fastapi, and uvicorn as dependencies. With your environment configured, let's create the server that will host your agent and expose it via the AG-UI protocol. Building the Server Let's create a FastAPI server that hosts an AI agent and exposes it via AG-UI: # server.py import os from typing import Annotated from dotenv import load_dotenv from fastapi import FastAPI from pydantic import Field from agent_framework import ChatAgent, ai_function from agent_framework.azure import AzureOpenAIChatClient from agent_framework_ag_ui import add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint from azure.identity import DefaultAzureCredential # Load environment variables from .env file load_dotenv() # Validate environment configuration openai_endpoint = os.getenv("AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT") model_deployment = os.getenv("AZURE_OPENAI_DEPLOYMENT_NAME") if not openai_endpoint: raise RuntimeError("Missing required environment variable: AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT") if not model_deployment: raise RuntimeError("Missing required environment variable: AZURE_OPENAI_DEPLOYMENT_NAME") # Define tools the agent can use @ai_function def get_order_status( order_id: Annotated[str, Field(description="The order ID to look up (e.g., ORD-001)")] ) -> dict: """Look up the status of a customer order. Returns order status, tracking number, and estimated delivery date. """ # Simulated order lookup orders = { "ORD-001": {"status": "shipped", "tracking": "1Z999AA1", "eta": "Jan 25, 2026"}, "ORD-002": {"status": "processing", "tracking": None, "eta": "Jan 23, 2026"}, "ORD-003": {"status": "delivered", "tracking": "1Z999AA3", "eta": "Delivered Jan 20"}, } return orders.get(order_id, {"status": "not_found", "message": "Order not found"}) # Initialize Azure OpenAI client chat_client = AzureOpenAIChatClient( credential=DefaultAzureCredential(), endpoint=openai_endpoint, deployment_name=model_deployment, ) # Configure the agent with custom instructions and tools agent = ChatAgent( name="CustomerSupportAgent", instructions="""You are a helpful customer support assistant. You have access to a get_order_status tool that can look up order information. IMPORTANT: When a user mentions an order ID (like ORD-001, ORD-002, etc.), you MUST call the get_order_status tool to retrieve the actual order details. Do NOT make up or guess order information. After calling get_order_status, provide the actual results to the user in a friendly format.""", chat_client=chat_client, tools=[get_order_status], ) # Initialize FastAPI application app = FastAPI( title="AG-UI Customer Support Server", description="Interactive AI agent server using AG-UI protocol with tool calling" ) # Mount the AG-UI endpoint add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint(app, agent, path="/chat") def main(): """Entry point for the AG-UI server.""" import uvicorn print("Starting AG-UI server on http://localhost:8000") uvicorn.run(app, host="0.0.0.0", port=8000, log_level="info") # Run the application if __name__ == "__main__": main() What's happening here: We define a tool: get_order_status with the AI_function decorator Use Annotated and Field for parameter descriptions to help the agent understand when and how to use the tool We create an Azure OpenAI chat client with credential authentication The ChatAgent is configured with domain-specific instructions and the tools parameter add_agent_framework_fastapi_endpoint automatically handles SSE streaming and tool execution The server exposes the agent at the /chat endpoint Note: This example uses Azure OpenAI, but AG-UI works with any chat model. You can also integrate with Azure AI Foundry's model catalog or use other LLM providers. Tool calling is supported by most modern LLMs including GPT-4, GPT-4o, and Claude models. To run this server: # Set your Azure OpenAI credentials export AZURE_OPENAI_ENDPOINT="https://your-resource.openai.azure.com/" export AZURE_OPENAI_DEPLOYMENT_NAME="gpt-4o" # Start the server python server.py With your server running and exposing the AG-UI endpoint, the next step is building a client that can connect and consume the event stream. Streaming Results to Clients With the server running, clients can connect and stream events as the agent processes requests. Here's a Python client that demonstrates the streaming capabilities: # client.py import asyncio import os from dotenv import load_dotenv from agent_framework import ChatAgent, FunctionCallContent, FunctionResultContent from agent_framework_ag_ui import AGUIChatClient # Load environment variables from .env file load_dotenv() async def interactive_chat(): """Interactive chat session with streaming responses.""" # Connect to the AG-UI server base_url = os.getenv("AGUI_SERVER_URL", "http://localhost:8000/chat") print(f"Connecting to: {base_url}\n") # Initialize the AG-UI client client = AGUIChatClient(endpoint=base_url) # Create a local agent representation agent = ChatAgent(chat_client=client) # Start a new conversation thread conversation_thread = agent.get_new_thread() print("Chat started! Type 'exit' or 'quit' to end the session.\n") try: while True: # Collect user input user_message = input("You: ") # Handle empty input if not user_message.strip(): print("Please enter a message.\n") continue # Check for exit commands if user_message.lower() in ["exit", "quit", "bye"]: print("\nGoodbye!") break # Stream the agent's response print("Agent: ", end="", flush=True) # Track tool calls to avoid duplicate prints seen_tools = set() async for update in agent.run_stream(user_message, thread=conversation_thread): # Display text content if update.text: print(update.text, end="", flush=True) # Display tool calls and results for content in update.contents: if isinstance(content, FunctionCallContent): # Only print each tool call once if content.call_id not in seen_tools: seen_tools.add(content.call_id) print(f"\n[Calling tool: {content.name}]", flush=True) elif isinstance(content, FunctionResultContent): # Only print each result once result_id = f"result_{content.call_id}" if result_id not in seen_tools: seen_tools.add(result_id) result_text = content.result if isinstance(content.result, str) else str(content.result) print(f"[Tool result: {result_text}]", flush=True) print("\n") # New line after response completes except KeyboardInterrupt: print("\n\nChat interrupted by user.") except ConnectionError as e: print(f"\nConnection error: {e}") print("Make sure the server is running.") except Exception as e: print(f"\nUnexpected error: {e}") def main(): """Entry point for the AG-UI client.""" asyncio.run(interactive_chat()) if __name__ == "__main__": main() Key features: The client connects to the AG-UI endpoint using AGUIChatClient with the endpoint parameter run_stream() yields updates containing text and content as they arrive Tool calls are detected using FunctionCallContent and displayed with [Calling tool: ...] Tool results are detected using FunctionResultContent and displayed with [Tool result: ...] Deduplication logic (seen_tools set) prevents printing the same tool call multiple times as it streams Thread management maintains conversation context across messages Graceful error handling for connection issues To use the client: # Optional: specify custom server URL export AGUI_SERVER_URL="http://localhost:8000/chat" # Start the interactive chat python client.py Example Session: Connecting to: http://localhost:8000/chat Chat started! Type 'exit' or 'quit' to end the session. You: What's the status of order ORD-001? Agent: [Calling tool: get_order_status] [Tool result: {"status": "shipped", "tracking": "1Z999AA1", "eta": "Jan 25, 2026"}] Your order ORD-001 has been shipped! - Tracking Number: 1Z999AA1 - Estimated Delivery Date: January 25, 2026 You can use the tracking number to monitor the delivery progress. You: Can you check ORD-002? Agent: [Calling tool: get_order_status] [Tool result: {"status": "processing", "tracking": null, "eta": "Jan 23, 2026"}] Your order ORD-002 is currently being processed. - Status: Processing - Estimated Delivery: January 23, 2026 Your order should ship soon, and you'll receive a tracking number once it's on the way. You: exit Goodbye! The client we just built handles events at a high level, abstracting away the details. But what's actually flowing through that SSE connection? Let's peek under the hood. Event Types You'll See As the server streams back responses, clients receive a series of structured events. If you were to observe the raw SSE stream (e.g., using curl), you'd see events like: curl -N http://localhost:8000/chat \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -H "Accept: text/event-stream" \ -d '{"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "What'\''s the status of order ORD-001?"}]}' Sample event stream (with tool calling): data: {"type":"RUN_STARTED","threadId":"eb4d9850-14ef-446c-af4b-23037acda9e8","runId":"chatcmpl-xyz"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_START","messageId":"e8648880-a9ff-4178-a17d-4a6d3ec3d39c","role":"assistant"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_START","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","toolCallName":"get_order_status","parentMessageId":"e8648880-a9ff-4178-a17d-4a6d3ec3d39c"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"{\""} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"order"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"_id"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"\":\""} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"ORD"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"-"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"001"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_ARGS","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","delta":"\"}"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_END","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y"} data: {"type":"TOOL_CALL_RESULT","messageId":"f048cb0a-a049-4a51-9403-a05e4820438a","toolCallId":"call_GTWj2N3ZyYiiQIjg3fwmiQ8y","content":"{\"status\": \"shipped\", \"tracking\": \"1Z999AA1\", \"eta\": \"Jan 25, 2026\"}","role":"tool"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_START","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","role":"assistant"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"Your"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" order"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" ORD"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"-"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"001"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" has"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" been"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":" shipped"} data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf","delta":"!"} ... (additional TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT events streaming the response) ... data: {"type":"TEXT_MESSAGE_END","messageId":"8215fc88-8cb6-4ce4-8bdb-a8715dcd26cf"} data: {"type":"RUN_FINISHED","threadId":"eb4d9850-14ef-446c-af4b-23037acda9e8","runId":"chatcmpl-xyz"} Understanding the flow: RUN_STARTED - Agent begins processing the request TEXT_MESSAGE_START - First message starts (will contain tool calls) TOOL_CALL_START - Agent invokes the get_order_status tool Multiple TOOL_CALL_ARGS events - Arguments stream incrementally as JSON chunks ({"order_id":"ORD-001"}) TOOL_CALL_END - Tool invocation structure complete TOOL_CALL_RESULT - Tool execution finished with result data TEXT_MESSAGE_START - Second message starts (the final response) Multiple TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT events - Response text streams word-by-word TEXT_MESSAGE_END - Response message complete RUN_FINISHED - Entire run completed successfully This granular event model enables rich UI experiences - showing tool execution indicators ("Searching...", "Calculating..."), displaying intermediate results, and providing complete transparency into the agent's reasoning process. Seeing the raw events helps, but truly working with AG-UI requires a shift in how you think about agent interactions. Let's explore this conceptual change. The Mental Model Shift Traditional API Thinking # Imperative: Call and wait response = agent.run("What's 2+2?") print(response) # "The answer is 4" Mental model: Function call with return value AG-UI Thinking # Reactive: Subscribe to events async for event in agent.run_stream("What's 2+2?"): match event.type: case "RUN_STARTED": show_loading() case "TEXT_MESSAGE_CONTENT": display_chunk(event.delta) case "RUN_FINISHED": hide_loading() Mental model: Observable stream of events This shift feels similar to: Moving from synchronous to async code Moving from REST to event-driven architecture Moving from polling to pub/sub This mental shift isn't just philosophical - it unlocks concrete benefits that weren't possible with request/response patterns. What You Gain Observability # You can SEE what the agent is doing TOOL_CALL_START: "get_order_status" TOOL_CALL_ARGS: {"order_id": "ORD-001"} TOOL_CALL_RESULT: {"status": "shipped", "tracking": "1Z999AA1", "eta": "Jan 25, 2026"} TEXT_MESSAGE_START: "Your order ORD-001 has been shipped..." Interruptibility # Future: Cancel long-running operations async for event in agent.run_stream(query): if user_clicked_cancel: await agent.cancel(thread_id, run_id) break Transparency # Users see the reasoning process "Looking up order ORD-001..." "Order found: Status is 'shipped'" "Retrieving tracking information..." "Your order has been shipped with tracking number 1Z999AA1..." To put these benefits in context, here's how AG-UI compares to traditional approaches across key dimensions: AG-UI vs. Traditional Approaches Aspect Traditional REST Custom Streaming AG-UI Connection Model Request/Response Varies Server-Sent Events State Management Manual Manual Protocol-managed Tool Calling Invisible Custom format Standardized events Framework Varies Framework-locked Framework-agnostic Browser Support Universal Varies Universal Implementation Simple Complex Moderate Ecosystem N/A Isolated Growing You've now seen AG-UI's design principles, implementation details, and conceptual foundations. But the most important question remains: should you actually use it? Conclusion: Is AG-UI Right for Your Project? AG-UI represents a shift toward standardized, observable agent interactions. Before adopting it, understand where the protocol stands and whether it fits your needs. Protocol Maturity The protocol is stable enough for production use but still evolving: Ready now: Core specification stable, Microsoft Agent Framework integration available, FastAPI/Python implementation mature, basic streaming and threading work reliably. Choose AG-UI If You Building new agent projects - No legacy API to maintain, want future compatibility with emerging ecosystem Need streaming observability - Multi-step workflows where users benefit from seeing each stage of execution Want framework flexibility - Same client code works with any AG-UI-compliant backend Comfortable with evolving standards - Can adapt to protocol changes as it matures Stick with Alternatives If You Have working solutions - Custom streaming working well, migration cost not justified Need guaranteed stability - Mission-critical systems where breaking changes are unacceptable Build simple agents - Single-step request/response without tool calling or streaming needs Risk-averse environment - Large existing implementations where proven approaches are required Beyond individual project decisions, it's worth considering AG-UI's role in the broader ecosystem. The Bigger Picture While this blog post focused on Microsoft Agent Framework, AG-UI's true power lies in its broader mission: creating a common language for agent-UI communication across the entire ecosystem. As more frameworks adopt it, the real value emerges: write your UI once, work with any compliant agent framework. Think of it like GraphQL for APIs or OpenAPI for REST - a standardization layer that benefits the entire ecosystem. The protocol is young, but the problem it solves is real. Whether you adopt it now or wait for broader adoption, understanding AG-UI helps you make informed architectural decisions for your agent applications. Ready to dive deeper? Here are the official resources to continue your AG-UI journey. Resources AG-UI & Microsoft Agent Framework Getting Started with AG-UI (Microsoft Learn) - Official tutorial AG-UI Integration Overview - Architecture and concepts AG-UI Protocol Specification - Official protocol documentation Backend Tool Rendering - Adding function tools Security Considerations - Production security guidance Microsoft Agent Framework Documentation - Framework overview AG-UI Dojo Examples - Live demonstrations UI Components & Integration CopilotKit for Microsoft Agent Framework - React component library Community & Support Microsoft Q&A - Community support Agent Framework GitHub - Source code and issues Related Technologies Azure AI Foundry Documentation - Azure AI platform FastAPI Documentation - Web framework Server-Sent Events (SSE) Specification - Protocol standard This blog post introduces AG-UI with Microsoft Agent Framework, focusing on fundamental concepts and building your first interactive agent application.Agents League: Two Weeks, Three Tracks, One Challenge
We're inviting all developers to join Agents League, running February 16-27. It's a two-week challenge where you'll build AI agents using production-ready tools, learn from live coding sessions, and get feedback directly from Microsoft product teams. We've put together starter kits for each track to help you get up and running quickly that also includes requirements and guidelines. Whether you want to explore what GitHub Copilot can do beyond autocomplete, build reasoning agents on Microsoft Foundry, or create enterprise integrations for Microsoft 365 Copilot, we have a track for you. Important: Register first to be eligible for prizes and your digital badge. Without registration, you won't qualify for awards or receive a badge when you submit. What Is Agents League? It's a 2-week competition that combines learning with building: 📽️ Live coding battles – Watch Product teams, MVPs and community members tackle challenges in real-time on Microsoft Reactor 💻 Async challenges – Build at your own pace, on your schedule 💬 Discord community – Connect with other participants, join AMAs, and get help when you need it 🏆 Prizes – $500 per track winner, plus GitHub Copilot Pro subscriptions for top picks The Three Tracks 🎨 Creative Apps — Build with GitHub Copilot (Chat, CLI, or SDK) 🧠 Reasoning Agents — Build with Microsoft Foundry 💼 Enterprise Agents — Build with M365 Agents Toolkit (or Copilot Studio) More details on each track below, or jump straight to the starter kits. The Schedule Agents League starts on February 16th and runs through Feburary 27th. Within 2 weeks, we host live battles on Reactor and AMA sessions on Discord. Week 1: Live Battles (Feb 17-19) We're kicking off with live coding battles streamed on Microsoft Reactor. Watch experienced developers compete in real-time, explaining their approach and architectural decisions as they go. Tue Feb 17, 9 AM PT — 🎨 Creative Apps battle Wed Feb 18, 9 AM PT — 🧠 Reasoning Agents battle Thu Feb 19, 9 AM PT — 💼 Enterprise Agents battle All sessions are recorded, so you can watch on your own schedule. Week 2: Build + AMAs (Feb 24-26) This is your time to build and ask questions on Discord. The async format means you work when it suits you, evenings, weekends, whatever fits your schedule. We're also hosting AMAs on Discord where you can ask questions directly to Microsoft experts and product teams: Tue Feb 24, 9 AM PT — 🎨 Creative Apps AMA Wed Feb 25, 9 AM PT — 🧠 Reasoning Agents AMA Thu Feb 26, 9 AM PT — 💼 Enterprise Agents AMA Bring your questions, get help when you're stuck, and share what you're building with the community. Pick Your Track We've created a starter kit for each track with setup guides, project ideas, and example scenarios to help you get started quickly. 🎨 Creative Apps Tool: GitHub Copilot (Chat, CLI, or SDK) Build innovative, imaginative applications that showcase the potential of AI-assisted development. All application types are welcome, web apps, CLI tools, games, mobile apps, desktop applications, and more. The starter kit walks you through GitHub Copilot's different modes and provides prompting tips to get the best results. View the Creative Apps starter kit. 🧠 Reasoning Agents Tool: Microsoft Foundry (UI or SDK) and/or Microsoft Agent Framework Build a multi-agent system that leverages advanced reasoning capabilities to solve complex problems. This track focuses on agents that can plan, reason through multi-step problems, and collaborate. The starter kit includes architecture patterns, reasoning strategies (planner-executor, critic/verifier, self-reflection), and integration guides for tools and MCP servers. View the Reasoning Agents starter kit. 💼 Enterprise Agents Tool: M365 Agents Toolkit or Copilot Studio Create intelligent agents that extend Microsoft 365 Copilot to address real-world enterprise scenarios. Your agent must work on Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat. Bonus points for: MCP server integration, OAuth security, Adaptive Cards UI, connected agents (multi-agent architecture). View the Enterprise Agents starter kit. Prizes & Recognition To be eligible for prizes and your digital badge, you must register before submitting your project. Category Winners ($500 each): 🎨 Creative Apps winner 🧠 Reasoning Agents winner 💼 Enterprise Agents winner GitHub Copilot Pro subscriptions: Community Favorite (voted by participants on Discord) Product Team Picks (selected by Microsoft product teams) Everyone who registers and submits a project wins: A digital badge to showcase their participation. Beyond the prizes, every participant gets feedback from the teams who built these tools, a valuable opportunity to learn and improve your approach to AI agent development. How to Get Started Register first — This is required to be eligible for prizes and to receive your digital badge. Without registration, your submission won't qualify for awards or a badge. Pick a track — Choose one track. Explore the starter kits to help you decide. Watch the battles — See how experienced developers approach these challenges. Great for learning even if you're still deciding whether to compete. Build your project — You have until Feb 27. Work on your own schedule. Submit via GitHub — Open an issue using the project submission template. Join us on Discord — Get help, share your progress, and vote for your favorite projects on Discord. Links Register: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/register Starter Kits: https://github.com/microsoft/agentsleague/starter-kits Discord: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/discord Live Battles: https://aka.ms/agentsleague/battles Submit Project: Project submission templateChoosing the Right Model in GitHub Copilot: A Practical Guide for Developers
AI-assisted development has grown far beyond simple code suggestions. GitHub Copilot now supports multiple AI models, each optimized for different workflows, from quick edits to deep debugging to multi-step agentic tasks that generate or modify code across your entire repository. As developers, this flexibility is powerful… but only if we know how to choose the right model at the right time. In this guide, I’ll break down: Why model selection matters The four major categories of development tasks A simplified, developer-friendly model comparison table Enterprise considerations and practical tips This is written from the perspective of real-world customer conversations, GitHub Copilot demos, and enterprise adoption journeys Why Model Selection Matters GitHub Copilot isn’t tied to a single model. Instead, it offers a range of models, each with different strengths: Some are optimized for speed Others are optimized for reasoning depth Some are built for agentic workflows Choosing the right model can dramatically improve: The quality of the output The speed of your workflow The accuracy of Copilot’s reasoning The effectiveness of Agents and Plan Mode Your usage efficiency under enterprise quotas Model selection is now a core part of modern software development, just like choosing the right library, framework, or cloud service. The Four Task Categories (and which Model Fits) To simplify model selection, I group tasks into four categories. Each category aligns naturally with specific types of models. 1. Everyday Development Tasks Examples: Writing new functions Improving readability Generating tests Creating documentation Best fit: General-purpose coding models (e.g., GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5‑mini, Claude Sonnet) These models offer the best balance between speed and quality. 2. Fast, Lightweight Edits Examples: Quick explanations JSON/YAML transformations Small refactors Regex generation Short Q&A tasks Best fit: Lightweight models (e.g., Claude Haiku 4.5) These models give near-instant responses and keep you “in flow.” 3. Complex Debugging & Deep Reasoning Examples: Analyzing unfamiliar code Debugging tricky production issues Architecture decisions Multi-step reasoning Performance analysis Best fit: Deep reasoning models (e.g., GPT‑5, GPT‑5.1, GPT‑5.2, Claude Opus) These models handle large context, produce structured reasoning, and give the most reliable insights for complex engineering tasks. 4. Multi-step Agentic Development Examples: Repo-wide refactors Migrating a codebase Scaffolding entire features Implementing multi-file plans in Agent Mode Automated workflows (Plan → Execute → Modify) Best fit: Agent-capable models (e.g., GPT‑5.1‑Codex‑Max, GPT‑5.2‑Codex) These models are ideal when you need Copilot to execute multi-step tasks across your repository. GitHub Copilot Models - Developer Friendly Comparison The set of models you can choose from depends on your Copilot subscription, and the available options may evolve over time. Each model also has its own premium request multiplier, which reflects the compute resources it requires. If you're using a paid Copilot plan, the multiplier determines how many premium requests are deducted whenever that model is used. Model Category Example Models (Premium request Multiplier for paid plans) What they’re best at When to Use Them Fast Lightweight Models Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3 Flash (0.33x) Grok Code Fast 1 (0.25x) Low latency, quick responses Small edits, Q&A, simple code tasks General-Purpose Coding Models GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5‑mini (0x) GPT-5-Codex, Claude Sonnet 4.5 (1x) Reliable day‑to‑day development Writing functions, small tests, documentation Deep Reasoning Models GPT-5.1 Codex Mini (0.33x) GPT‑5, GPT‑5.1, GPT-5.1 Codex, GPT‑5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.0, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 3 Pro (1x) Claude Opus 4.5 (3x) Complex reasoning and debugging Architecture work, deep bug diagnosis Agentic / Multi-step Models GPT‑5.1‑Codex‑Max, GPT‑5.2‑Codex (1x) Planning + execution workflows Repo-wide changes, feature scaffolding Enterprise Considerations For organizations using Copilot Enterprise or Business: Admins can control which models employees can use Model selection may be restricted due to security, regulation, or data governance You may see fewer available models depending on your organization’s Copilot policies Using "Auto" Model selection in GitHub Copilot GitHub Copilot’s Auto model selection automatically chooses the best available model for your prompts, reducing the mental load of picking a model and helping you avoid rate‑limiting. When enabled, Copilot prioritizes model availability and selects from a rotating set of eligible models such as GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5 mini, GPT‑5.2‑Codex, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 while respecting your subscription level and any administrator‑imposed restrictions. Auto also excludes models blocked by policies, models with premium multipliers greater than 1, and models unavailable in your plan. For paid plans, Auto provides an additional benefit: a 10% discount on premium request multipliers when used in Copilot Chat. Overall, Auto offers a balanced, optimized experience by dynamically selecting a performant and cost‑efficient model without requiring developers to switch models manually. Read more about the 'Auto' Model selection here - About Copilot auto model selection - GitHub Docs Final Thoughts GitHub Copilot is becoming a core part of the developer workflows. Choosing the right model can dramatically improve your productivity, the accuracy of Copilot’s responses, your experience with multi-step agentic tasks, your ability to navigate complex codebases Whether you’re building features, debugging complex issues, or orchestrating repo-wide changes, picking the right model helps you get the best out of GitHub Copilot. References and Further Reading To explore each model further, visit the GitHub Copilot model comparison documentation or try switching models in Copilot Chat to see how they impact your workflow. AI model comparison - GitHub Docs Requests in GitHub Copilot - GitHub Docs About Copilot auto model selection - GitHub DocsA Visual Introduction To Azure Fundamentals
Are you a visual learner? Do you like to see "the big picture" before you dive into details? Does seeing visual notes or metaphors help you understand new concepts better, and retain or recall them more effectively? Then this is for you. A Visual Introduction To Azure Fundamentals - the first in a series of visualized modules that I hope will be helpful for anyone exploring Azure Fundamentals, or preparing for the AZ-900 exam! Want to learn more? Check out this accompanying article at A Cloud Guru! Have questions, or want to see other modules visualized similarly? Leave me a comment on this post!Rethinking Documentation Translation: Treating Translations as Versioned Software Assets
Rethinking Documentation Translation: Treating Translations as Versioned Software Assets This article is written from the perspective of maintaining large, open-source documentation repositories in the Microsoft ecosystem. I am the maintainer of Co-op Translator, an open-source tool for automating multilingual documentation translation, used across multiple large documentation repositories, including Microsoft’s For Beginners series. In large documentation repositories, translation problems rarely fail loudly. They fail quietly, and they accumulate over time. Recently, we made a fundamental design decision in how Co-op Translator handles translations. Translations are treated as versioned software assets, not static outputs. This article explains why we reached that conclusion, and what this perspective enables for teams maintaining large, fast-moving documentation repositories. When translations quietly become a liability In most documentation projects, translations are treated as finished outputs. Once a file is translated, it is assumed to remain valid until someone explicitly notices a problem. But documentation rarely stands still. Text changes. Code examples evolve. Screenshots are replaced. Notebooks are updated to reflect new behavior. The problem is that these changes are often invisible in translated content. A translation may still read fluently, while the information it contains is already out of date. At that point, the issue is no longer about translation quality. It becomes a maintenance problem. Reframing the question Most translation workflows implicitly ask: Is this translation correct? In practice, maintainers struggle with a different question: Is this translation still synchronized with the current source? This distinction matters. A translation can be correct and still be out of sync. Once we acknowledged this, it became clear that treating translations as static content was no longer sufficient. The design decision: translations as versioned assets Starting with Co-op Translator 0.16.2, we made a deliberate design decision: Translations are treated as versioned software assets. This applies not only to Markdown files, but also to images, notebooks, and any other translated artifacts. Translated content is not just text. It is an artifact generated from a specific version of a source. To make this abstraction operational rather than theoretical, we did not invent a new mechanism. Instead, we looked to systems that already solve a similar problem: pip, poetry, and npm. These tools are designed to track artifacts as their sources evolve. We applied the same thinking to translated content. Closer to dependency management than translation jobs The closest analogy is software dependency management. When a dependency becomes outdated: it is not suddenly “wrong,” it is simply no longer aligned with the current version. Translations behave the same way. When the source document changes: the translated file does not immediately become incorrect, it becomes out of sync with its source version. This framing shifts the problem away from translation output and toward state and synchronization. Why file-level versioning matters Many translation systems operate at the string or segment level. That model works well for UI text and relatively stable resources. Documentation is different. A Markdown file is an artifact. A screenshot is an artifact. A notebook is an artifact. They are consumed as units, not as isolated strings. Managing translation state at the file level allows maintainers to reason about translations using the same mental model they already apply to other repository assets. What changed in practice From embedded markers to explicit state Previously, translation metadata lived inside translated files as embedded comments or markers. This approach had clear limitations: translation state was fragmented, difficult to inspect globally, and easy to miss as repositories grew. We moved to language-scoped JSON state files that explicitly track: the source version, the translated artifact, and its synchronization status. Translation state is no longer hidden inside content. It is a first-class, inspectable part of the repository. Extending the model to images and notebooks The same model now applies consistently to: translated images, localized notebooks, and other non-text artifacts. If an image changes in the source language, the translated image becomes out of sync. If a notebook is updated, its translated versions are evaluated against the new source version. The format does not matter. The lifecycle does. Once translations are treated as versioned assets, the system remains consistent across all content types. What this enables This design enables: Explicit drift detection See which translations are out of sync without guessing. Consistent maintenance signals Text, images, and notebooks follow the same rules. Clear responsibility boundaries The system reports state. Humans decide action. Scalability for fast-moving repositories Translation maintenance becomes observable, not reactive. In large documentation sets, this difference determines whether translation maintenance is sustainable at all. What this is not This system does not: judge translation quality, determine semantic correctness, or auto-approve content. It answers one question only: Is this translated artifact synchronized with its source version? Who this is for This approach is designed for teams that: maintain multilingual documentation, update content frequently, and need confidence in what is actually up to date. When documentation evolves faster than translations, treating translations as versioned assets becomes a necessity, not an optimization. Closing thought Once translations are modeled as software assets, long-standing ambiguities disappear. State becomes visible. Maintenance becomes manageable. And translations fit naturally into existing software workflows. At that point, the question is no longer whether translation drift exists, but: Can you see it? Reference Co-op Translator repository https://github.com/Azure/co-op-translatorHow to Build Safe Natural Language-Driven APIs
TL;DR Building production natural language APIs requires separating semantic parsing from execution. Use LLMs to translate user text into canonical structured requests (via schemas), then execute those requests deterministically. Key patterns: schema completion for clarification, confidence gates to prevent silent failures, code-based ontologies for normalization, and an orchestration layer. This keeps language as input, not as your API contract. Introduction APIs that accept natural language as input are quickly becoming the norm in the age of agentic AI apps and LLMs. From search and recommendations to workflows and automation, users increasingly expect to "just ask" and get results. But treating natural language as an API contract introduces serious risks in production systems: Nondeterministic behavior Prompt-driven business logic Difficult debugging and replay Silent failures that are hard to detect In this post, I'll describe a production-grade architecture for building safe, natural language-driven APIs: one that embraces LLMs for intent discovery and entity extraction while preserving the determinism, observability, and reliability that backend systems require. This approach is based on building real systems using Azure OpenAI and LangGraph, and on lessons learned the hard way. The Core Problem with Natural Language APIs Natural language is an excellent interface for humans. It is a poor interface for systems. When APIs accept raw text directly and execute logic based on it, several problems emerge: The API contract becomes implicit and unversioned Small prompt changes cause behavioral changes Business logic quietly migrates into prompts In short: language becomes the contract, and that's fragile. The solution is not to avoid natural language, but to contain it. A Key Principle: Natural Language Is Input, Not a Contract So how do we contain it? The answer lies in treating natural language fundamentally differently than we treat traditional API inputs. The most important design decision we made was this: Natural language should be translated into structure, not executed directly. That single principle drives the entire architecture. Instead of building "chatty APIs," we split responsibilities clearly: Natural language is used for intent discovery and entity extraction Structured data is used for execution Two Explicit API Layers This principle translates into a concrete architecture with two distinct API layers, each with a single, clear responsibility. 1. Semantic Parse API (Natural Language → Structure) This API: Accepts user text Extracts intent and entities using LLMs Completes a predefined schema Asks clarifying questions when required Returns a canonical, structured request Does not execute business logic Think of this as a compiler, not an engine. 2. Structured Execution API (Structure → Action) This API: Accepts only structured input Calls downstream systems to process the request and get results Is deterministic and versioned Contains no natural language handling Is fully testable and replayable This is where execution happens. Why This Separation Matters Separating these layers gives you: A stable, versionable API contract Freedom to improve NLP without breaking clients Clear ownership boundaries Deterministic execution paths Most importantly, it prevents LLM behavior from leaking into core business logic. Canonical Schemas Are the Backbone Now that we've established the two-layer architecture, let's dive into what makes it work: canonical schemas. Each supported intent is defined by a canonical schema that lives in code. Example (simplified): This schema is used when a user is looking for similar product recommendations. The entities capture which product to use as reference and how to bias the recommendations toward price or quality. { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": "string", "price_bias": "number (-1 to 1)", "quality_bias": "number (-1 to 1)" } } Schemas define: Required vs optional fields Allowed ranges and types Validation rules They are the contract, not the prompt. When a user says "show me products like the blue backpack but cheaper", the LLM extracts: Intent: recommend_similar reference_product_id: "blue_backpack_123" price_bias: -0.8 (strongly prefer cheaper) quality_bias: 0.0 (neutral) The schema ensures that even if the user phrased it as "find alternatives to item 123 with better pricing" or "cheaper versions of that blue bag", the output is always the same structure. The natural language variation is absorbed at the semantic layer. The execution layer receives a consistent, validated request every time. This decoupling is what makes the system maintainable. Schema Completion, Not Free-Form Chat But what happens when the user's input doesn't contain all the information needed to complete the schema? This is where structured clarification comes in. A common misconception is that clarification means "chatting until it feels right." In production systems, clarification is schema completion. If required fields are missing or ambiguous, the semantic API responds with: What information is missing A targeted clarification question The current schema state Example response: { "status": "needs_clarification", "missing_fields": ["reference_product_id"], "question": "Which product should I compare against?", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } The state object is the memory. The API itself remains stateless. A Complete Conversation Flow To illustrate how schema completion works in practice, here's a full conversation flow where the user's initial request is missing required information: Initial Request: User: "Show me cheaper alternatives with good quality" API Response (needs clarification): { "status": "needs_clarification", "missing_fields": ["reference_product_id"], "question": "Which product should I compare against?", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } Follow-up Request: User: "The blue backpack" Client sends: { "user_input": "The blue backpack", "state": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": null, "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } API Response (complete): { "status": "complete", "canonical_request": { "intent": "recommend_similar", "entities": { "reference_product_id": "blue_backpack_123", "price_bias": -0.3, "quality_bias": 0.4 } } } The client passes the state back with each clarification. The API remains stateless, while the client manages the conversation context. Once complete, the canonical_request can be sent directly to the execution API. Why LangGraph Fits This Problem Perfectly With schemas and clarification flows defined, we need a way to orchestrate the semantic parsing workflow reliably. This is where LangGraph becomes valuable. LangGraph allows semantic parsing to be modeled as a structured, deterministic workflow with explicit decision points: Classify intent: Determine what the user wants to do from a predefined set of supported actions Extract candidate entities: Pull out relevant parameters from the natural language input using the LLM Merge into schema state: Map the extracted values into the canonical schema structure Validate required fields: Check if all mandatory fields are present and values are within acceptable ranges Either complete or request clarification: Return the canonical request if complete, or ask a targeted question if information is missing Each node has a single responsibility. Validation and routing are done in code, not by the LLM. LangGraph provides: Explicit state transitions Deterministic routing Observable execution Safe retries Used this way, it becomes a powerful orchestration tool, not a conversational agent. Confidence Gates Prevent Silent Failures Structured workflows handle the process, but there's another critical safety mechanism we need: knowing when the LLM isn't confident about its extraction. Even when outputs are structurally valid, they may not be reliable. We require the semantic layer to emit a confidence score. If confidence falls below a threshold, execution is blocked and clarification is requested. This simple rule eliminates an entire class of silent misinterpretations that are otherwise very hard to detect. Example: When a user says "Show me items similar to the bag", the LLM might extract: { "intent": "recommend_similar", "confidence": 0.55, "entities": { "reference_product_id": "generic_bag_001", "confidence_scores": { "reference_product_id": 0.4 } } } The overall confidence is low (0.55), and the entity confidence for reference_product_id is very low (0.4) because "the bag" is ambiguous. There might be hundreds of bags in the catalog. Instead of proceeding with a potentially wrong guess, the API responds: { "status": "needs_clarification", "reason": "low_confidence", "question": "I found multiple bags. Did you mean the blue backpack, the leather tote, or the travel duffel?", "confidence": 0.55 } This prevents the system from silently executing the wrong recommendation and provides a better user experience. Lightweight Ontologies (Keep Them in Code) Beyond confidence scoring, we need a way to normalize the variety of terms users might use into consistent canonical values. We also introduced lightweight, code-level ontologies: Allowed intents Required entities per intent Synonym-to-canonical mappings Cross-field validation rules These live in code and configuration, not in prompts. LLMs propose values. Code enforces meaning. Example: Consider these user inputs that all mean the same thing: "Show me cheaper options" "Find budget-friendly alternatives" "I want something more affordable" "Give me lower-priced items" The LLM might extract different values: "cheaper", "budget-friendly", "affordable", "lower-priced". The ontology maps all of these to a canonical value: PRICE_BIAS_SYNONYMS = { "cheaper": -0.7, "budget-friendly": -0.7, "affordable": -0.7, "lower-priced": -0.7, "expensive": 0.7, "premium": 0.7, "high-end": 0.7 } When the LLM extracts "budget-friendly", the code normalizes it to -0.7 for the price_bias field. Similarly, cross-field validation catches logical inconsistencies: if entities["price_bias"] < -0.5 and entities["quality_bias"] > 0.5: return clarification("You want cheaper items with higher quality. This might be difficult. Should I prioritize price or quality?") The LLM proposes. The ontology normalizes. The validation enforces business rules. What About Latency? A common concern with multi-step semantic parsing is performance. In practice, we observed: Intent classification: ~40 ms Entity extraction: ~200 ms Validation and routing: ~1 ms Total overhead: ~250–300 ms. For chat-driven user experiences, this is well within acceptable bounds and far cheaper than incorrect or inconsistent execution. Key Takeaways Let's bring it all together. If you're building APIs that accept natural language in production: Do not make language your API contract Translate language into canonical structure Own schema completion server-side Use LLMs for discovery and extraction, not execution Treat safety and determinism as first-class requirements Natural language is an input format. Structure is the contract. Closing Thoughts LLMs make it easy to build impressive demos. Building safe, reliable systems with them requires discipline. By separating semantic interpretation from execution, and by using tools like Azure OpenAI and LangGraph thoughtfully, you can build natural language-driven APIs that scale, evolve, and behave predictably in production. Hopefully, this architecture saves you a few painful iterations.🚀 AI Toolkit for VS Code: January 2026 Update
Happy New Year! 🎆 We are kicking off 2026 with a major set of updates designed to streamline how you build, test, and deploy AI agents. This month, we’ve focused on aligning with the latest GitHub Copilot standards, introducing powerful new debugging tools, and enhancing our support for enterprise-grade models via Microsoft Foundry. 💡 From Copilot Instructions to Agent Skills The biggest architectural shift following the latest VS Code Copilot standards, in v0.28.1 is the transition from Copilot Instructions to Copilot Skills. This transition has equipped GitHub Copilot specialized skills on developing AI agents using Microsoft Foundry and Agent Framework in a cost-efficient way. In AI Toolkit, we have migrated our Copilot Tools from the Custom Instructions to Agent Skills. This change allows for a more capable integration within GitHub Copilot Chat. 🔄 Enhanced AIAgentExpert: Our custom agent now has a deeper understanding of workflow code generation and evaluation planning/execution. 🧹Automatic Migration: When you upgrade to v0.28.1, the toolkit will automatically clean up your old instructions to ensure a seamless transition to the new skills-based framework. 🏗️ Major Enhancements to Agent Development Our v0.28.0 milestone release brought significant improvements to how agents are authored and authenticated. 🔒 Anthropic & Entra Auth Support We’ve expanded the Agent Builder and Playground to support Anthropic models using Entra Auth types. This provides enterprise developers with a more secure way to leverage Claude models within the Agent Framework while maintaining strict authentication standards. 🏢 Foundry-First Development We are prioritizing the Microsoft Foundry ecosystem to provide a more robust development experience: Foundry v2: Code generation for agents now defaults to Foundry v2. ⚡ Eval Tool: You can now generate evaluation code directly within the toolkit to create and run evaluations in Microsoft Foundry. 📊 Model Catalog: We’ve optimized the Model Catalog to prioritize Foundry models and improved general loading performance. 🏎️ 💻 Performance and Local Models For developers building on Windows, we continue to optimize the local model experience: Profiling for Windows ML: Version 0.28.0 introduces profiling features for Windows ML-based local models, allowing you to monitor performance and resource utilization directly within VS Code. Platform Optimization: To keep the interface clean, we’ve removed the Windows AI API tab from the Model Catalog when running on Linux and macOS platforms. 🐛 Squashing Bugs & Polishing the Experience Codespaces Fix: Resolved a crash occurring when selecting images in the Playground while using GitHub Codespaces. Resource Management: Fixed a delay where newly added models wouldn't immediately appear in the "My Resources" view. Claude Compatibility: Fixed an issue where non-empty content was required for Claude models when used via the AI Toolkit in GitHub Copilot. 🚀 Getting Started Ready to experience the future of AI development? Here's how to get started: 📥 Download: Install the AI Toolkit from the Visual Studio Code Marketplace 📖 Learn: Explore our comprehensive AI Toolkit Documentation 🔍 Discover: Check out the complete changelog for v0.24.0 We'd love to hear from you! Whether it's a feature request, bug report, or feedback on your experience, join the conversation and contribute directly on our GitHub repository. Happy Coding! 💻✨Implementing A2A protocol in NET: A Practical Guide
As AI systems mature into multi‑agent ecosystems, the need for agents to communicate reliably and securely has become fundamental. Traditionally, agents built on different frameworks like Semantic Kernel, LangChain, custom orchestrators, or enterprise APIs do not share a common communication model. This creates brittle integrations, duplicate logic, and siloed intelligence. The Agent‑to‑Agent Standard (A2AS) addresses this gap by defining a universal, vendor‑neutral protocol for structured agent interoperability. A2A establishes a common language for agents, built on familiar web primitives: JSON‑RPC 2.0 for messaging and HTTPS for transport. Each agent exposes a machine‑readable Agent Card describing its capabilities, supported input/output modes, and authentication requirements. Interactions are modeled as Tasks, which support synchronous, streaming, and long‑running workflows. Messages exchanged within a task contain Parts; text, structured data, files, or streams, that allow agents to collaborate without exposing internal implementation details. By standardizing discovery, communication, authentication, and task orchestration, A2A enables organizations to build composable AI architectures. Specialized agents can coordinate deep reasoning, planning, data retrieval, or business automation regardless of their underlying frameworks or hosting environments. This modularity, combined with industry adoption and Linux Foundation governance, positions A2A as a foundational protocol for interoperable AI systems. A2AS in .NET — Implementation Guide Prerequisites • .NET 8 SDK • Visual Studio 2022 (17.8+) • A2A and A2A.AspNetCore packages • Curl/Postman (optional, for direct endpoint testing) The open‑source A2A project provides a full‑featured .NET SDK, enabling developers to build and host A2A agents using ASP.NET Core or integrate with other agents as a client. Two A2A and A2A.AspNetCore packages power the experience. The SDK offers: A2AClient - to call remote agents TaskManager - to manage incoming tasks & message routing AgentCard / Message / Task models - strongly typed protocol objects MapA2A() - ASP.NET Core router integration that auto‑generates protocol endpoints This allows you to expose an A2A‑compliant agent with minimal boilerplate. Project Setup Create two separate projects: CurrencyAgentService → ASP.NET Core web project that hosts the agent A2AClient → Console app that discovers the agent card and sends a message Install the packages from the pre-requisites in the above projects. Building a Simple A2A Agent (Currency Agent Example) Below is a minimal Currency Agent implemented in ASP.NET Core. It responds by converting amounts between currencies. Step 1: In CurrencyAgentService project, create the CurrencyAgentImplementation class to implement the A2A agent. The class contains the logic for the following: a) Describing itself (agent “card” metadata). b) Processing the incoming text messages like “100 USD to EUR”. c) Returning a single text response with the conversion. The AttachTo(ITaskManager taskManager) method hooks two delegates on the provided taskManager - a) OnAgentCardQuery → GetAgentCardAsync: returns agent metadata. b) OnMessageReceived → ProcessMessageAsync: handles incoming messages and produces a response. Step 2: In the Program.cs of the Currency Agent Solution, create a TaskManager , and attach the agent to it, and expose the A2A endpoint. Typical flow: GET /agent → A2A host asks OnAgentCardQuery → returns the card POST /agent with a text message → A2A host calls OnMessageReceived → returns the conversion text. All fully A2A‑compliant. Calling an A2A Agent from .NET To interact with any A2A‑compliant agent from .NET, the client follows a predictable sequence: identify where the agent lives, discover its capabilities through the Agent Card, initialize a correctly configured A2AClient, construct a well‑formed message, send it asynchronously, and finally interpret the structured response. This ensures your client is fully aligned with the agent’s advertised contract and remains resilient as capabilities evolve. Below are the steps implemented to call the A2A agent from the A2A client: Identify the agent endpoint: Why: You need a stable base URL to resolve the agent’s metadata and send messages. What: Construct a Uri pointing to the agent service, e.g., https://localhost:7009/agent. Discover agent capabilities via an Agent Card. Why: Agent Cards provide a contract: name, description, final URL to call, and features (like streaming). This de-couples your client from hard-coded assumptions and enables dynamic capability checks. What: Use A2ACardResolver with the endpoint Uri, then call GetAgentCardAsync() to obtain an AgentCard. Initialize the A2AClient with the resolved URL. Why: The client encapsulates transport details and ensures messages are sent to the correct agent endpoint, which may differ from the discovery URL. What: Create A2AClient using new Uri (currencyCard.Url) from the Agent Card for correctness. Construct a well-formed agent request message. Why: Agents typically require structured messages for roles, traceability, and multi-part inputs. A unique message ID supports deduplication and logging. What: Build an AgentMessage: • Role = MessageRole.User clarifies intent. • MessageId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString() ensures uniqueness. • Parts contains content; for simple queries, a single TextPart with the prompt (e.g., “100 USD to EUR”). Package and send the message. Why: MessageSendParams can carry the message plus any optional settings (e.g., streaming flags or context). Using a dedicated params object keeps the API extensible. What: Wrap the AgentMessage in MessageSendParams and call SendMessageAsync(...) on the A2AClient. Outcome: Await the asynchronous response to avoid blocking and to stay scalable. Interpret the agent response. Why: Agents can return multiple Parts (text, data, attachments). Extracting the appropriate part avoids assumptions and keeps your client robust. What: Cast to AgentMessage, then read the first TextPart’s Text for the conversion result in this scenario. Best Practices 1. Keep Agents Focused and Single‑Purpose Design each agent around a clear, narrow capability (e.g., currency conversion, scheduling, document summarization). Single‑responsibility agents are easier to reason about, scale, and test, especially when they become part of larger multi‑agent workflows. 2. Maintain Accurate and Helpful Agent Cards The Agent Card is the first interaction point for any client. Ensure it accurately reflects: Supported input/output formats Streaming capabilities Authentication requirements (if any) Version information A clean and honest card helps clients integrate reliably without guesswork. 3. Prefer Structured Inputs and Outputs Although A2A supports plain text, using structured payloads through DataPart objects significantly improves consistency. JSON inputs and outputs reduce ambiguity, eliminate prompt‑engineering edge cases, and make agent behavior more deterministic especially when interacting with other automated agents. 4. Use Meaningful Task States Treat A2A Tasks as proper state machines. Transition through states intentionally (Submitted → Working → Completed, or Working → InputRequired → Completed). This gives clients clarity on progress, makes long‑running operations manageable, and enables more sophisticated control flows. 5. Provide Helpful Error Messages Make use of A2A and JSON‑RPC error codes such as -32602 (invalid input) or -32603 (internal error), and include additional context in the error payload. Avoid opaque messages, error details should guide the client toward recovery or correction. 6. Keep Agents Stateless Where Possible Stateless agents are easier to scale and less prone to hidden failures. When state is necessary, ensure it is stored externally or passed through messages or task contexts. For local POCs, in‑memory state is acceptable, but design with future statelessness in mind. 7. Validate Input Strictly Do not assume incoming messages are well‑formed. Validate fields, formats, and required parameters before processing. For example, a currency conversion agent should confirm both currencies exist and the value is numeric before attempting a conversion. 8. Design for Streaming Even if Disabled Streaming is optional, but it’s a powerful pattern for agents that perform progressive reasoning or long computations. Structuring your logic so it can later emit partial TextPart updates makes it easy to upgrade from synchronous to streaming workflows. 9. Include Traceability Metadata Embed and log identifiers such as TaskId, MessageId, and timestamps. These become crucial for debugging multi‑agent scenarios, improving observability, and correlating distributed workflows—especially once multiple agents collaborate. 10. Offer Clear Guidance When Input Is Missing Instead of returning a generic failure, consider shifting the task to InputRequired and explaining what the client should provide. This improves usability and makes your agent self‑documenting for new consumers.Data Security: Azure key Vault in Data bricks
Why this article? To remove the vulnerability of exposing the data base connection string in Databricks notebook directly, by using Azure key vault. Database connection strings are extremely confidential/vulnerable data, that we should not be exposed in the DataBricks notebook explicitly. Azure key vault is a secure option to read the secrets and establish connection. What do we need? Tenant Id of the app from the app registration with access to the azure key vault secrets Client Id of the of the app from the app registration with access to the azure key vault secrets Client secret of the app from the app registration with access to the azure key vault Where to find this information? Under the App registration, you can find the (application) Client Id, Directory (tenant) Id. Client secret value is found in the app registration of the service, under Manage -> Certificate & secrets. You can use an existing secret or create a new one and use it to access the key Vault secrets. Make sure the application is added with get access to read the secrets. Verify the key vault you are checking and using in Databricks is the same one with read access. You can verify this by going to the Azure key vault -> Access Policies and search for the application name. It should show up on search as below, this will confirm that the access of the application. What do we need to setup in Databricks notebook? Open your cluster and install azure.keyvault and azure-identity (installing version should be compatible with you cluster configuration, refer: https://docs.databricks.com/aws/en/libraries/package-repositories) In a new notebook, let’s start by importing the necessary modules. Your notebook would start with the modules, followed by tentatId, clientId, client secret, azure key vault URL , secretName of the connection string in the azure key vault and secretVersion. Lastly, we need to fetch the secret using the below code Vola, we have the DB connection string to perform the CRUD operations. Conclusion: By securely retrieving your database connection string from Azure Key Vault, you eliminate credential exposure and strengthen the overall security posture of your Databricks workflows. This simple shift ensures your notebooks remain clean, compliant, and production‑ready.
How to Ensure Seamless Data Recovery and Deployment in Microsoft Azure
Overcoming Cosmos DB Backup and Restore Challenges with Azure Databricks The Challenge of Backing Up and Restoring Azure Cosmos DB One of the significant pain points when working with Azure Cosmos DB is the lack of instant, self-service backup restoration. While Cosmos DB is engineered for global scalability and high availability, its backup and recovery process introduces a crucial bottleneck for organizations that demand agility. Backups in Cosmos DB are created automatically, but restoring them isn’t a seamless, on-demand operation. Instead, it often involves lengthy procedures and sometimes requires intervention from Microsoft support, causing delays that can stretch from hours to even longer—depending on the size and complexity of your data. Downtime Risks: During the drawn-out restore process, your applications might face downtime or reduced performance, impacting end-users and business operations. Deployment Delays: The inability to rapidly roll back or restore data can turn even minor deployment hiccups into major headaches. Lack of Flexibility: Developers and DevOps teams miss the control of instant, self-service restores, limiting their ability to efficiently manage data recovery. Compliance Hurdles: Industries with strict regulatory requirements may struggle to meet recovery time objectives due to slow data restoration. Why Instant Restore Capabilities Matter As cloud-native environments thrive on speed and reliability, the ability to restore data instantly is more than a convenience—it’s essential for: Rapid recovery from accidental data loss or corruption. Enabling safe, confident deployments with a reliable rollback plan. Supporting dynamic test and staging environments using current data snapshots. Without instant restore, organizations face heightened risks and operational slowdowns, which can stifle innovation and erode customer trust. How Azure Databricks Offers a Solution Azure Databricks steps in as a powerful ally for teams looking to bypass these backup limitations. Combining the flexibility of Apache Spark with seamless Azure integration, Databricks allows you to automate data exports, transformations, and—most importantly—restoration workflows customized to your exact needs. Restoring Data Before Deployment: A Practical Approach Automated, Periodic Backups: Databricks notebooks can regularly export Cosmos DB collections into Azure Data Lake or Blob Storage, providing you with up-to-date data snapshots. On-Demand Restoration: When it’s time to deploy or test, Databricks can efficiently restore backup data into a separate Cosmos DB container, preserving production data and minimizing risk. Deployment Safety Net: With a fresh container ready, teams can proceed with confidence, knowing that any deployment misstep can be instantly rolled back—no more waiting for time-consuming support escalations. Seamless Automation: Databricks workflows can be integrated with CI/CD pipelines, customized for various environments, and scheduled or triggered as needed. A Sample Workflow Set up Databricks to regularly back up Cosmos DB data to Azure storage. Before deployment, launch a Databricks job to restore the latest backup into a separate Cosmos DB container. Test and verify the deployment using the restored container, ensuring maximum safety and the ability to roll back instantly if needed. Once deployment is confirmed, switch over or merge as appropriate, with minimal risk to production data. The Benefits at a Glance Minimal Downtime: Quick restoration helps avoid business disruptions during incidents or rollbacks. Operational Agility: Teams can move faster, knowing that data can be restored whenever needed. Enhanced Data Protection: Using separate containers ensures production data remains shielded from accidental changes. Efficiency Gains: Automated processes reduce manual workload and the need for direct intervention. Conclusion Azure Cosmos DB’s backup and restore limitations present real challenges for organizations seeking agility and reliability. By harnessing Azure Databricks to automate backups and enable rapid restoration into separate containers, teams can unlock a new level of safety and flexibility. This approach empowers organizations to recover quickly, deploy fearlessly, and keep innovation moving at cloud speed. Call to Action Want to simplify Azure Cosmos DB backup and restore and avoid long recovery times? 📌 Explore these resources to get started: Azure Databricks documentation | Microsoft Learn Using Databricks to Enrich Data in Cosmos DB on the Fly | by Rahul Gosavi | Medium Azure Cosmos DB Workshop - Load Data Into Cosmos DB with Azure Databricks Automating backups and on-demand restores with Azure Databricks can help you reduce downtime, deploy with confidence, and stay in control of your data.
