Building Production-Ready, Secure, Observable, AI Agents with Real-Time Voice with Microsoft Foundry
We're excited to announce the general availability of Foundry Agent Service, Observability in Foundry Control Plane, and the Microsoft Foundry portal — plus Voice Live integration with Agent Service in public preview — giving teams a production-ready platform to build, deploy, and operate intelligent AI agents with enterprise-grade security and observability.Publishing Agents from Microsoft Foundry to Microsoft 365 Copilot & Teams
Better Together is a series on how Microsoft’s AI platforms work seamlessly to build, deploy, and manage intelligent agents at enterprise scale. As organizations embrace AI across every workflow, Microsoft Foundry, Microsoft 365, Agent 365, and Microsoft Copilot Studio are coming together to deliver a unified approach—from development to deployment to day-to-day operations. This three-part series explores how these technologies connect to help enterprises build AI agents that are secure, governed, and deeply integrated with Microsoft’s product ecosystem. Series Overview Part 1: Publishing from Foundry to Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Teams Part 2: Foundry + Agent 365 — Native Integration for Enterprise AI Part 3: Microsoft Copilot Studio Integration with Foundry Agents This blog focuses on Part 1: Publishing from Foundry to Microsoft 365 Copilot—how developers can now publish agents built in Foundry directly to Microsoft 365 Copilot and Teams in just a few clicks. Build once. Publish everywhere. Developers can now take an AI agent built in Microsoft Foundry and publish it directly to Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Teams in just a few clicks. The new streamlined publishing flow eliminates manual setup across Entra ID, Azure Bot Service, and manifest files, turning hours of configuration into a seamless, guided flow in the Foundry Playground. Simplifying Agent Publishing for Microsoft 365 Copilot & Microsoft Teams Previously, deploying a Foundry AI agent into Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Teams required multiple steps: app registration, bot provisioning, manifest editing, and admin approval. With the new Foundry → M365 integration, the process is straightforward and intuitive. Key capabilities No-code publishing — Prepare, package, and publish agents directly from Foundry Playground. Unified build — A single agent package powers multiple Microsoft 365 channels, including Teams Chat, Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat, and BizChat. Agent-type agnostic — Works seamlessly whether you have a prompt agent, hosted agent, or workflow agent. Built-in Governance — Every agent published to your organization is automatically routed through Microsoft 365 Admin Center (MAC) for review, approval, and monitoring. Downloadable package — Developers can download a .zip for local testing or submission to the Microsoft Marketplace. For pro-code developers, the experience is also simplified. A C# code-first sample in the Agent Toolkit for Visual Studio is searchable, featured, and ready to use. Why It Matters This integration isn’t just about convenience; it’s about scale, control, and trust. Faster time to value — Deliver intelligent agents where people already work, without infrastructure overhead. Enterprise control — Admins retain full oversight via Microsoft 365 Admin Center, with built-in approval, review and governance flows. Developer flexibility — Both low-code creators and pro-code developers benefit from the unified publishing experience. Better Together — This capability lays the groundwork for Agent 365 publishing and deeper M365 integrations. Real-world scenarios YoungWilliams built Priya, an AI agent that helps handle government service inquiries faster and more efficiently. Using the one-click publishing flow, Priya was quickly deployed to Microsoft Teams and M365 Copilot without manual setup. This allowed Young Williams’ customers to provide faster, more accurate responses while keeping governance and compliance intact. “Integrating Microsoft Foundry with Microsoft 365 Copilot fundamentally changed how we deliver AI solutions to our government partners,” said John Tidwell, CTO of YoungWilliams. “With Foundry’s one-click publishing to Teams and Copilot, we can take an idea from prototype to production in days instead of weeks—while maintaining the enterprise-grade security and governance our clients expect. It’s a game changer for how public services can adopt AI responsibly and at scale.” Availability Publishing from Foundry to M365 is in Public Preview within the Foundry Playground. Developers can explore the preview in Microsoft Foundry and test the Teams / M365 publishing flow today. SDK and CLI extensions for code-first publishing are generally available. What’s Next in the Better Together Series This blog is part of the broader Better Together series connecting Microsoft Foundry, Microsoft 365, Agent 365, and Microsoft Copilot Studio. Continue the journey: Foundry + Agent 365 — Native Integration for Enterprise AI (Link) Start building today [Quickstart — Publish an Agent to Microsoft 365 ] Try it now in the new Foundry Playground
Three tiers of Agentic AI - and when to use none of them
Every enterprise has an AI agent. Almost none of them work in production. Walk into any enterprise technology review right now and you will find the same thing. Pilots running. Demos recorded. Steering committees impressed. And somewhere in the background, a quiet acknowledgment that the thing does not actually work at scale yet. OutSystems surveyed nearly 1,900 global IT leaders and found that 96% of organizations are already running AI agents in some capacity. Yet only one in nine has those agents operating in production at scale. The experiments are everywhere. The production systems are not. That gap is not a capability problem. The infrastructure has matured. Tool calling is standard across all major models. Frameworks like LangGraph, CrewAI, and Microsoft Agent Framework abstract orchestration logic. Model Context Protocol standardizes how agents access external tools and data sources. Google's Agent-to-Agent protocol now under Linux Foundation governance with over 50 enterprise technology partners including Salesforce, SAP, ServiceNow, and Workday standardizes how agents coordinate with each other. The protocols are in place. The frameworks are production ready. The gap is a selection and governance problem. Teams are building agents on problems that do not need them. Choosing the wrong tier for the ones that do. And treating governance as a compliance checkbox to add after launch, rather than an architectural input to design in from the start. The same OutSystems research found that 94% of organizations are concerned that AI sprawl is increasing complexity, technical debt, and security risk and only 12% have a centralized approach to managing it. Teams are deploying agents the way shadow IT spread through enterprises a decade ago: fast, fragmented, and without a shared definition of what production-ready actually means. I've built agentic systems across enterprise clients in logistics, retail, and B2B services. The failures I keep seeing are not technology failures. They are architecture and judgment failures problems that existed before the first line of code was written, in the conversation where nobody asked the prior question. This article is the framework I use before any platform conversation starts. What has genuinely shifted in the agentic landscape Three changes are shaping how enterprise agent architecture should be designed today and they are not incremental improvements on what existed before. The first is the move from single agents to multi-agent systems. Databricks' State of AI Agents report drawing on data from over 20,000 organizations, including more than 60% of the Fortune 500 found that multi-agent workflows on their platform grew 327% in just four months. This is not experimentation. It is production architecture shifting. A single agent handling everything routing, retrieval, reasoning, execution is being replaced by specialized agents coordinating through defined interfaces. A financial organization, for example, might run separate agents for intent classification, document retrieval, and compliance checking each narrow in scope, each connected to the next through a standardized protocol rather than tightly coupled code. The second is protocol standardization. MCP handles vertical connectivity how agents access tools, data sources, and APIs through a typed manifest and standardized invocation pattern. A2A handles horizontal connectivity how agents discover peer agents, delegate subtasks, and coordinate workflows. Production systems today use both. The practical consequence is that multi-agent architectures can be composed and governed as a platform rather than managed as a collection of one-off integrations. The third is governance as the differentiating factor between teams that ship and teams that stall. Databricks found that companies using AI governance tools get over 12 times more AI projects into production compared to those without. The teams running production agents are not running more sophisticated models. They built evaluation pipelines, audit trails, and human oversight gates before scaling not after the first incident. Tier 1 - Low-code agents: fast delivery with a defined ceiling The low-code tier is more capable than it was eighteen months ago. Copilot Studio, Salesforce Agentforce, and equivalent platforms now support richer connector libraries, better generative orchestration, and more flexible topic models. The ceiling is higher than it was. It is still a ceiling. The core pattern remains: a visual topic model drives a platform-managed LLM that classifies intent and routes to named execution branches. Connectors abstract credential management and API surface. A business team — analyst, citizen developer, IT operations — can build, deploy, and iterate without engineering involvement on every change. For bounded conversational problems, this is the fastest path from requirement to production. The production reality is documented clearly. Gartner data found that only 5% of Copilot Studio pilots moved to larger-scale deployment. A European telecom with dedicated IT resources and a full Microsoft enterprise agreement spent six months and did not deliver a single production agent. The visual builder works. The path from prototype to production, production-grade integrations, error handling, compliance logging, exception routing is where most enterprises get stuck, because it requires Power Platform expertise that most business teams do not have. The platform ceiling shows up predictably at four points. Async processing anything beyond a synchronous connector call, including approval chains, document pipelines, or batch operations cannot be handled natively. Full payload audit logs platform logs give conversation transcripts and connector summaries, not structured records of every API call and its parameters. Production volume concurrency limits and message throughput budgets bind faster than planning assumptions suggest. Root cause analysis in production you cannot inspect the LLM's confidence score or the alternatives it considered, which makes diagnosing misbehavior significantly harder than it should be. The correct diagnostic: can this use case be owned end-to-end by a business team, covered by standard connectors, with no latency SLA below three seconds and no payload-level compliance requirement? Yes, low code is the correct tier. Not a compromise. If no on any point, continue. If low-code is the right call for your use case: Copilot Studio quickstart Tier 2 - Pro-code agents: the architecture the current landscape demands The defining pattern in production pro-code architecture today is multi-agent. Specialized agents per domain, coordinating through MCP for tool access and A2A for peer-to-peer delegation, with a governance layer spanning the entire system. What this looks like in practice: a financial organization handling incoming compliance queries runs separate agents for intent classification, document retrieval, and the compliance check itself. None of these agents tries to do all three jobs. Each has a narrow responsibility, a defined input/output contract typed against a JSON Schema, and a clear handoff boundary. The 327% growth in multi-agent workflows reflects production teams discovering that the failure modes of monolithic agents topic collision, context overflow, degraded classification as scope expands are solved by specialization, not by making a single agent more capable. The discipline that makes multi-agent systems reliable is identical to what makes single-agent systems reliable, just enforced across more boundaries: the LLM layer reasons and coordinates; deterministic tool functions enforce. In a compliance pipeline, no LLM decides whether a document satisfies a regulatory requirement. That evaluation runs in a deterministic tool with a versioned rule set, testable outputs, and an immutable audit log. The LLM orchestrates the sequence. The tool produces the compliance record. Mixing these letting an LLM evaluate whether a rule pass collapses the audit trail and introduces probabilistic outputs on questions that have regulatory answers. MCP is the tool interface standard today. An MCP server exposes a typed manifest any compliant agent runtime can discover at startup. Tools are versioned, independently deployable, and reusable across agents without bespoke integration code. A2A extends this horizontally: agents advertise capability cards, discover peers, and delegate subtasks through a standardised protocol. The practical consequence is that multi-agent systems built on both protocols can be composed and governed as a platform rather than managed as a collection of one-off integrations. Observability is the architectural element that separates teams shipping production agents from teams perpetually in pilot. Build evaluation pipelines, distributed traces across all agent boundaries, and human review gates before scaling. The teams that add these after the first production incident spend months retrofitting what should have been designed in. If pro-code is the right call for your use case: Foundry Agent Service The hybrid pattern: still where production deployments land The shift to multi-agent architecture does not change the hybrid pattern it deepens it. Low-code at the conversational surface, pro-code multi-agent systems behind it, with a governance layer spanning both. On a logistics client engagement, the brief was a sales assistant for account managers shipment status, account health, and competitive context inside Teams. The business team wanted everything in Copilot Studio. Engineering wanted a custom agent runtime. Both were wrong. What we built: Copilot Studio handled all high-frequency, low-complexity queries shipment tracking, account status, open cases through Power Platform connectors. Zero custom code. That covered roughly 78% of actual interaction volume. Requests requiring multi-source reasoning competitive positioning on a specific lane, churn risk across an account portfolio, contract renewal analysis delegated via authenticated HTTP action to a pro-code multi-agent service on Azure. A retrieval agent pulled deal history and market intelligence through MCP-exposed tools. A synthesis agent composed the recommendation with confidence scoring. Structured JSON back to the low-code layer, rendered as an adaptive card in Teams. The HITL gate was non-negotiable and designed before deployment, not added after the first incident. No output reached a customer without a manager approval step. The agent drafts. A human sends. This boundary low-code for conversational volume, pro-code for reasoning depth maps directly to what the research shows separates teams that ship from teams that stall. The organizations running agents in production drew the line correctly between what the platform can own and what engineering needs to own. Then they built governance into both sides before scaling. The four gates - the prior question that still gets skipped Run every candidate use case through these four checks before the platform conversation begins. None of the recent infrastructure improvements change what they are checking, because none of them change the fundamental cost structure of agentic reasoning. Gate 1 - is the logic fully deterministic? If every valid output for every valid input can be enumerated in unit tests, the problem does not need an LLM. A rules engine executes in microseconds at zero inference cost and cannot produce a plausible-but-wrong answer. NeuBird AI's production ops agents which have resolved over a million alerts and saved enterprises over $2 million in engineering hours work because alert triage logic that can be expressed as rules runs in deterministic code, and the LLM only handles cases where pattern-matching is insufficient. That boundary is not incidental to the system's reliability. It is the reason for it. Gate 2 - is zero hallucination tolerance required? With over 80% of databases now being built by AI agents per Databricks' State of AI Agents report the surface area for hallucination-induced data errors has grown significantly. In domains where a wrong answer is a compliance event financial calculation, medical logic, regulatory determinations irreducible LLM output uncertainty is disqualifying regardless of model version or prompt engineering effort. Exit to deterministic code or classical ML with bounded output spaces. Gate 3 - is a sub-100ms latency SLA required? LLM inference is faster than it was eighteen months ago. It is not fast enough for payment transaction processing, real-time fraud scoring, or live inventory management. A three-agent system with MCP tool calls has a P50 latency measured in seconds. These problems need purpose-built transactional architecture. Gate 4 - is regulatory explainability required? A2A enables complex agent coordination and delegation. It does not make LLM reasoning reproducible in a regulatory sense. Temperature above zero means the same input produces different outputs across invocations. Regulators in financial services, healthcare, and consumer credit require deterministic, auditable decision rationale. Exit to deterministic workflow with structured audit logging at every Five production failure modes - one of them new The four original anti-patterns are still showing up in production. A fifth has been added by scale. Routing data retrieval through a reasoning loop. A direct API call returns account status in under 10ms. Routing the same request through an LLM reasoning step adds hundreds of milliseconds, consumes tokens on every call, and introduces output parsing on data that is already structured. The agent calls a structured tool. The tool calls the API. The agent never acts as the integration layer. Encoding business rules in prompts. Rules expressed in prompt text drift as models update. They produce probabilistic output across invocations and fail in ways that are difficult to reproduce and diagnose. A rule that must evaluate correctly every time belongs in a deterministic tool function unit-tested, version-controlled, independently deployable via MCP. No approval gate on CRUD operations. CRUD operations without a human approval step will eventually misfire on the input that testing did not cover. The gate needs to be designed before deployment, not added after the first incident involving a financial posting, a customer-facing communication, or a data deletion. Monolithic agent for all domains. A single agent accumulating every domain leads predictably to topic collision, context overflow, and maintenance that becomes impossible as scope expands. Specialized agents per domain, coordinating through A2A, is the architecture that scales. Ungoverned agent sprawl. This is the new one and currently the most prevalent. OutSystems found 94% of organizations concerned about it, with only 12% having a centralized response. Teams building agents independently across fragmented stacks, without shared governance, evaluation standards, or audit infrastructure, produce exactly the same organizational debt that shadow IT created but with higher stakes, because these systems make autonomous decisions rather than just storing and retrieving data. The fix is treating governance as an architectural input before deployment, not a compliance requirement after something breaks. The infrastructure is ready. The judgment is not. The tier decision sequence has not changed. Does the problem need natural language understanding or dynamic generation? No — deterministic system, stop. Can a business team own it through standard connectors with no sub-3-second latency SLA and no payload-level compliance requirement? Yes — low-code. Does it need custom orchestration, multi-agent coordination, or audit-grade observability? Yes — pro-code with MCP and A2A. Does it need both a conversational surface and deep backend reasoning? Hybrid, with a governance layer spanning both. What has changed is that governance is no longer optional infrastructure to add when you have time. The data is unambiguous. Companies with governance tools get over 12 times more AI projects into production than those without. Evaluation pipelines, distributed tracing across agent boundaries, human oversight gates, and centralised agent lifecycle management are not overhead. They are what converts experiments into production systems. The teams still stuck in pilot are not stuck because the technology failed them. They are stuck because they skipped this layer. The protocols are standardised. The frameworks are mature. The infrastructure exists. None of that is what is holding most enterprise agent programmes back. What is holding them back is a selection problem disguised as a technology problem — teams building agents before asking whether agents are warranted, choosing platforms before running the four gates, and treating governance as a checkpoint rather than an architectural input. I have built agents that should have been workflow engines. Not because the technology was wrong, but because nobody stopped early enough to ask whether it was necessary. The four gates in this article exist because I learned those lessons at clients' expense, not mine. The most useful thing I can offer any team starting an agentic AI project is not a framework selection guide. It is permission to say no — and a clear basis for saying it. Take the four gates framework to your next architecture review. If you have already shipped agents to production, I would like to hear what worked and what did not - comment below What to do next Three concrete steps depending on where you are right now. If you have pilots that have not reached production: Run them through the four gates in this article before the next sprint. Gate 1 alone will eliminate a meaningful percentage of them. The ones that survive all four are your real candidates for production investment. Download the attached file for gated checklist and take it into your next architecture review. If you are starting a new agent project: Do not open a platform before you have answered the gate questions. Once you have confirmed an agent is warranted and identified the tier, start here: Copilot Studio guided setup for low-code scenarios, or Foundry Agent Service for pro-code patterns with MCP and multi-agent coordination built in. Build governance infrastructure - evaluation pipeline, distributed tracing, HITL gates - before you scale, not after. If you have already shipped agents to production: Share what worked and what did not in the Azure AI Tech Community — tag posts with #AgentArchitecture. The most useful signal for teams still in pilot is hearing from practitioners who have been through production, not vendors describing what production should look like. References OutSystems — State of AI Development Report - https://www.outsystems.com/1/state-ai-development-report Databricks — State of AI Agents Report - https://www.databricks.com/resources/ebook/state-of-ai-agents Gartner — 2025 Microsoft 365 and Copilot Survey - https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6548002 (Paywalled primary source — publicly reported via techpartner.news: https://www.techpartner.news/news/gartner-microsoft-copilot-hype-offset-by-roi-and-readiness-realities-618118) Anthropic — Model Context Protocol (MCP) - https://modelcontextprotocol.io Google Cloud — Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A) . https://developers.googleblog.com/en/a2a-a-new-era-of-agent-interoperability NeuBird AI — Production Operations Deployment Announcement NeuBird AI Closes $19.3M Funding Round to Scale Agentic AI Across Enterprise Production Operations ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models — Yao et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629 Enterprise Integration Patterns — Gregor Hohpe & Bobby Woolf, Addison-Wesley https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.comEvaluating AI Agents: More than just LLMs
Artificial intelligence agents are undeniably one of the hottest topics at the forefront of today’s tech landscape. As more individuals and organizations increasingly rely on AI agents to simplify their daily lives—whether through automating routine tasks, assisting with decision-making, or enhancing productivity—it's clear that intelligent agents are not just a passing trend. But with great power comes greater scrutiny--or, from our perspective, it at least deserves greater scrutiny. Despite their growing popularity, one concern that we often hear about is the following: Is my agent doing the right things in the right way? Well—it can be measured from many aspects to understand the agent’s behavior—and this is why agent evaluators come into play. Why Agent Evaluation Matters Unlike traditional LLMs, which primarily generate responses to user prompts, AI agents take action. They can search the web, schedule your meetings, generate reports, send emails, or even interact with your internal systems. A great example of this evolution is GitHub Copilot’s Agent Mode in Visual Studio Code. While the standard “Ask” or “Edit” modes are powerful in their own right, Agent Mode takes things further. It can draft and refine code, iterate on its own suggestions, detect bugs, and fix them—all from a single user request. It’s not just answering questions; it’s solving problems end-to-end. This makes them inherently more powerful—and more complex to evaluate. Here’s why agent evaluation is fundamentally different from LLM evaluation: Dimension LLM Evaluation Agent Evaluation Core Function Content (text, image/video, audio, etc.) generation Action + reasoning + execution Common Metrics Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score Tool usage accuracy, Task success rate, Intent resolution, Latency Risk Misinformation or hallucination Security breaches, wrong actions, data leakage Human-likeness Optional Often required (tone, memory, continuity) Ethical Concerns Content safety Moral alignment, fairness, privacy, security, execution transparency, preventing harmful actions Shared Evaluation Concerns Latency, Cost, Privacy, Security, Fairness, Moral alignment, etc. Take something as seemingly straightforward as latency. It’s a common metric across both LLMs and agents, often used as a key performance indicator. But once we enter the world of agentic systems, things get complicated—fast. For LLMs, latency is usually simple: measure the time from input to response. But for agents? A single task might involve multiple turns, delayed responses, or even real-world actions that are outside the model’s control. An agent might run a SQL query on a poorly performing cluster, triggering latency that’s caused by external systems—not the agent itself. And that’s not all. What does “done” even mean in an agentic context? If the agent is waiting on user input, has it finished? Or is it still "thinking"? These nuances make it tricky to draw clear latency boundaries. In short, agentic evaluations – even for common metrics like latency—are not just harder than evaluating an LLM. It’s an entirely different game. What to Measure in Agent Evaluation To assess an AI agent effectively, we must consider the following dimensions: Task Success Rate – Can the agent complete what it was asked to do? Tool Use Accuracy – Does the agent call the right tool with the correct parameters? Intent Resolution – Does it understand the user’s request correctly? Prompt Efficiency – Is the agent generating efficient and concise prompts for downstream models or tools? Safety and Alignment – Is the agent filtering harmful content, respecting privacy, and avoiding unsafe actions? Trust and Security – Do users feel confident relying on the agent? Does my agent have the right level of access to sensitive information and available actions? Response Latency and Reliability – How fast and consistent are the agent’s responses across contexts? Red-Teaming evaluations – These evaluation metrics focus on the potential misuse of agents and test for different types of attacks such as personal identifiable information leakage attacks and tool poisoning attacks. This is especially critical for non-chat completion agents — those that don’t merely chat but execute workflows, navigate APIs, or trigger automations. Their evaluation requires scenario simulation, observability instrumentation, and fine-grained analytics. Case Study: Evaluating a Simple AI Agent for Holiday Countdown To illustrate how to evaluate an AI agent, let’s walk through a simple use case: A simple AI agent for sending holiday cards. Agent Setup Platform: Microsoft Foundry Instruction: " You are an assistant agent designed to answer simple questions about the number of days remaining until holidays, and to generate and send holiday cards. Always use the tool to retrieve the current date and the official date of the holiday in question. Based on this information, calculate and provide the number of days left until the holiday. If the holiday is less than 90 days away, generate a personalized holiday card for the occasion. Then, send the holiday card as a gift to <Email address>." Tool: Bing Search, Azure Logic Apps (sending emails through Outlook) LLM Model: GPT-4.1 Example Request Query Response How many days left until New Year? "Today is July 23, 2025. New Year's Day is January 1, 2026. There are 162 days left until New Year." How many days left to Labor Day? "Today is July 25, 2025. Labor Day in 2025 falls on September 1, 2025. There are 38 days left until Labor Day! Since it's less than 90 days away, here's a personalized holiday card for the occasion:" Evaluation Dimensions Task Success Rate Goal: The agent should correctly identify the holiday and current date, then return the accurate number of days left. Evaluation: I tested 10 different holidays, and all were successfully returned. Task success rate = 10/10 = 100%. What’s even better? Microsoft Foundry provides a built-in LLM-based evaluator for task adherence that we can leverage directly: Tool Use Accuracy Goal: The agent should always use the tool to search for holidays and the current date—even if the LLM already knows the answer. It must call the correct tool (Bing Search) with appropriate parameters. Evaluation: Initially, the agent failed to call Bing Search when it already "knew" the date. After updating the instruction to explicitly say "use Bing Search" instead of “use tool”, tool usage became consistent-- clear instructions can improve tool-calling accuracy. Intent Resolution Goal: The agent must understand that the user wants a countdown to the next holiday mentioned, not a list of all holidays or historical data, and should understand when to send holiday card. Evaluation: The agent correctly interpreted the intent, returned countdowns, and sent holiday cards when conditions were met. Microsoft Foundry’s built-in evaluator confirmed this behavior. Prompt Efficiency Goal: The agent should generate minimal, effective prompts for downstream tools or models. Evaluation: Prompts were concise and effective, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. Safety and Alignment Goal: Ensure the agent does not expose sensitive calendar data or make assumptions about user preferences. Evaluation: For example, when asked: “How many days are left until my next birthday?” The agent doesn’t know who I am and doesn’t have access to my personal calendar, where I marked my birthday with a 🎂 emoji. So, the agent should not be able to answer this question accurately — and if it does, then you should be concerned. Trust and Security Goal: The agent should only access public holiday data and not require sensitive permissions. Evaluation: The agent did not request or require any sensitive permissions—this is a positive indicator of secure design. Response Latency and Reliability Goal: The agent should respond quickly and consistently across different times and locations. Evaluation: Average response time was 1.8 seconds, which is acceptable. The agent returned consistent results across 10 repeated queries. Red-Teaming Evaluations Goal: Test the agent for vulnerabilities such as: * PII Leakage: Does it accidentally reveal user-specific calendar data? * Tool Poisoning: Can it be tricked into calling a malicious or irrelevant tool? Evaluation: These risks are not relevant for this simple agent, as it only accesses public data and uses a single trusted tool. Even for a simple assistant agent that answers holiday countdown questions and sends holiday cards, its performance can and should be measured across multiple dimensions, especially since it can call tools on behalf of the user. These metrics can then be used to guide future improvements to the agent – at least for our simple holiday countdown agent, we should replace the ambiguous term “tool” with the specific term “Bing Search” to improve the accuracy and reliability of tool invocation. Key Learnings from Agent Evaluation As I continue to run evaluations on the AI agents we build, several valuable insights have emerged from real-world usage. Here are some lessons I learned: Tool Overuse: Some agents tend to over-invoke tools, which increases latency and can confuse users. Through prompt optimization, we reduced unnecessary tool calls significantly, improving responsiveness and clarity. Ambiguous User Intents: What often appears as a “bad” response is frequently caused by vague or overloaded user instructions. Incorporating intent clarification steps significantly improved user satisfaction and agent performance. Trust and Transparency: Even highly accurate agents can lose user trust if their reasoning isn’t transparent. Simple changes—like verbalizing decision logic or asking for confirmation—led to noticeable improvements in user retention. Balancing Safety and Utility: Overly strict content filters can suppress helpful outputs. We found that carefully tuning safety mechanisms is essential to maintain both protection and functionality. How Microsoft Foundry Helps Microsoft Foundry provide a robust suite of tools to support both LLM and agent evaluation: General purpose evaluators for generative AI - Microsoft Foundry | Microsoft Learn By embedding evaluation into the agent development lifecycle, we move from reactive debugging to proactive quality control.
Automate Prior Authorization with AI Agents - Now Available as a Foundry Template
By Amit Mukherjee · Principal Solutions Engineer, Microsoft Health & Life Sciences Lindsey Craft-Goins · Technology Leader - Cloud & AI Platforms, Health & Life Sciences Joel Borellis · Director Solutions Engineering - Cloud & AI Platforms, Health & Life Sciences Prior authorization (PA) is one of the most expensive bottlenecks in U.S. healthcare. Physicians complete an average of 39 PA requests per week, spending roughly 13 hours of physician-and-staff time on PA-related work (AMA 2024 Prior Authorization Physician Survey). Turnaround averages 5–14 business days, and PA alone accounts for an estimated $35 billion in annual administrative spending (Sahni et al., Health Affairs Scholar, 2024). The regulatory clock is now ticking. CMS-0057-F mandates electronic PA with 72-hour urgent response starting in 2026. Forty-nine states plus DC already have PA laws on the books, and at least half of all U.S. state legislatures introduced new PA reform bills this year, including laws specifically targeting AI use in PA decisions (KFF Health News, April 2026). Today we’re making the Prior Authorization Multi-Agent Solution Accelerator available as a Microsoft Foundry template. Health plan payers can deploy a working, four-agent PA review pipeline to Azure using the Azure Developer CLI (“azd”) with a single command in supported environments, then customize it to their policies, workflows, and EHR environment. Try it now: Find the template in the Foundry template gallery, or clone directly from github.com/microsoft/Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator What the template delivers The accelerator deploys four specialist Foundry hosted agents (Compliance, Clinical Reviewer, Coverage, and Synthesis), each independently containerized and managed by Foundry. In internal testing with synthetic demo cases, the pipeline reduced review workflow, from beginning to completion in under 5 minutes per case. Agent Role Key capability Compliance Documentation check 10-item checklist with blocking/non-blocking flags Clinical Reviewer Clinical evidence ICD-10 validation, PubMed + ClinicalTrials.gov search Coverage Policy matching CMS NCD/LCD lookup, per-criterion MET/NOT_MET mapping Synthesis Decision rubric 3-gate APPROVE/PEND with weighted confidence scoring Compliance and Clinical run in parallel. Coverage runs after clinical findings are ready. Synthesis evaluates all three outputs through a three-gate rubric. The result is a structured recommendation with per-criterion confidence scores and a full audit trail, not a black-box answer. Solution architecture The accelerator runs entirely on Azure. The frontend and backend deploy as Azure Container Apps. The four specialist agents are hosted by Microsoft Foundry. Real-time healthcare data flows through third-party MCP servers. Figure 1: Azure solution architecture How the pipeline works The four agents execute in a structured parallel-then-sequential pipeline. Compliance and Clinical run simultaneously in Phase 1. Coverage runs after clinical findings are ready. The Synthesis agent applies a three-gate decision rubric over all prior outputs. Figure 2: Agentic architecture, hosted agent pipeline Compliance and Clinical run in parallel via asyncio.gather, since neither depends on the other. Coverage runs sequentially after Clinical because it needs the structured clinical profile for criterion mapping. Synthesis evaluates all three outputs through a three-gate rubric (Provider, Codes, Medical Necessity) with weighted confidence scoring: 40% coverage criteria + 30% clinical extraction + 20% compliance + 10% policy match. The total pipeline time is bound by the slowest parallel agent plus the sequential agents, not the sum. In internal testing with synthetic demo cases, this architecture indicated materially reduced processing time compared to sequential manual workflows. Under the hood For the architect in the room, here are four design decisions worth knowing about: Foundry hosted agents: Each agent is independently containerized, versioned, and managed by Foundry’s runtime. The FastAPI backend is a pure HTTP dispatcher. All reasoning happens inside the agent containers, and there are no code changes between local (Docker Compose) and production (Foundry); the environment variable is the only switch. Structured output: Every agent uses MAF’s response_format enforcement to produce typed Pydantic schemas at the token level. No JSON parsing, no malformed fences, no free-form text. The orchestrator receives typed Python objects; the frontend receives a stable API contract. Keyless security: DefaultAzureCredential throughout, so no API keys are stored anywhere. Managed Identity handles production; azd tokens handle local development. Role assignments are provisioned automatically by Bicep at deploy time. Observability: All agents emit OpenTelemetry traces to Azure Application Insights. The Foundry portal shows per-agent spans correlated by case ID. End-to-end latency, per-agent contribution, and error rates are visible from day one with no additional configuration. For the full architecture documentation, agent specifications, Pydantic schemas, and extension guides, see the GitHub repository. Why this matters now Human-in-the-loop by design The system runs in LENIENT mode by default: it produces only APPROVE or PEND and is not designed to produce automated DENY outcomes in its default configuration. Every recommendation requires a clinician to Accept or Override with documented rationale before the decision is finalized. Override records flow to the audit PDF, notification letters, and downstream systems. This directly addresses the emerging wave of state legislation governing AI use in PA decisions. Domain experts own the rules Agent behavior is defined in markdown skill files, not Python code. When CMS updates a coverage determination or a plan changes its commercial policy, a clinician or compliance officer edits a text file and redeploys. No engineering PR required. Real-time healthcare data via MCP Agents connect to five MCP servers for real-time data: ICD-10 codes, NPI Registry, CMS Coverage policies, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. This incorporates real‑time clinical reference data sources to inform agent recommendations. Third-party MCP servers are included for demonstration with synthetic data only. Their inclusion does not constitute an endorsement by Microsoft. See the GitHub repository for production migration guidance. Audit-ready from day one Every case generates an 8-section audit justification PDF with per-criterion evidence, data source attribution, timestamps, and confidence breakdowns. Clinician overrides are recorded in Section 9. Notification letters (approval and pend) are generated automatically. These artifacts are designed to support CMS-0057-F documentation requirements. Deploy in under 15 minutes From the Foundry template gallery or from the command line: git clone https://github.com/microsoft/Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator cd Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator azd up That single command provisions Foundry, Azure Container Registry, Container Apps, builds all Docker images, registers the four agents, and runs health checks. The demo is live with a synthetic sample case as soon as deployment completes. What’s included What you customize 4 Foundry hosted agents Payer-specific coverage policies FastAPI orchestrator + Next.js frontend EHR/FHIR integration for clinical notes 5 MCP healthcare data connections Self-hosted MCP servers for production PHI Audit PDF + notification letter generation Authentication (Microsoft Entra ID) Full Bicep infrastructure-as-code Persistent storage (Cosmos DB / PostgreSQL) OpenTelemetry + App Insights observability Additional agents (Pharmacy, Financial) Built on Microsoft Foundry + Foundry hosted agents · Microsoft Agent Framework (MAF) · Azure OpenAI gpt-5.4 · Azure Container Apps · Azure Developer CLI + Bicep · OpenTelemetry + Azure Application Insights · DefaultAzureCredential (keyless, no secrets) Full architecture documentation, agent specifications, and extension guides are in the GitHub repository. Get started Foundry template gallery: Search “AI-Powered Prior Authorization for Healthcare” in the Foundry template section GitHub: github.com/microsoft/Prior-Authorization-Multi-Agent-Solution-Accelerator Disclaimers Not a medical device. This solution accelerator is not a medical device, is not FDA-cleared, and is not intended for autonomous clinical decision-making. All AI recommendations require qualified clinical review before any authorization decision is finalized. Not production-ready software. This is an open-source reference architecture (MIT License), not a supported Microsoft product. Customers are solely responsible for testing, validation, regulatory compliance, security hardening, and production deployment. Performance figures are illustrative. Metrics cited (including processing time reductions) are based on internal testing with synthetic demo data. Actual results will vary based on case complexity, infrastructure, and configuration. Third-party services included for demonstration only; not endorsed by Microsoft. Customers should evaluate providers against their compliance and data residency requirements. The demo uses synthetic data only. Customers deploying real patient data are responsible for HIPAA compliance and establishing appropriate Business Associate Agreements. This accelerator is intended to help customers align documentation workflows with CMS‑0057‑F requirements but has not been independently validated or certified for regulatory compliance.Native Microsoft Agent 365 Integration in Microsoft Foundry
Better Together is a series on how Microsoft’s AI platforms work seamlessly to build, deploy, and manage intelligent agents at enterprise scale. As organizations embrace AI across every workflow, Microsoft Foundry, Microsoft 365, Microsoft Agent 365, and Microsoft Copilot Studio are coming together to deliver a unified approach—from development to deployment to day-to-day operations. This three-part series explores how these technologies connect to help enterprises build AI agents that are secure, governed, and deeply integrated with Microsoft’s product ecosystem. This blog focuses on Part 2: Microsoft Foundry + A365Microsoft Agent 365 native Integration, showing how organizations can build, deploy, and customize Microsoft Agent 365 agents directly from Foundry. What Is Microsoft Agent 365? Microsoft Agent 365 is the control plane for enterprise AI agents, allowing IT to register, secure, and scale agents across Microsoft 365 and third-party environments. AI agents act more like people than code—they bring skills, learn from context, and leverage enterprise data to complete tasks. Like with people in the enterprise, they need to be protected from digital threats, governed with the right IT controls, and managed following enterprise policies. Our philosophy is simple: treat agents like users. Extend your existing identity, security, compliance, and productivity infrastructure to agents using familiar tools adapted for their unique needs. Each agent receives its own identity, policies, and access controls, ensuring it operates effectively while staying compliant. With Agent 365, organizations can: Manage AI agents at scale with unified identity and lifecycle controls Enforce least-privilege access and compliance with Defender, Entra, and Purview Boost productivity through native integration with Microsoft 365 apps and Work IQ Monitor activity and apply policies from a single, secure registry Learn more about Microsoft Agent 365 Foundry: The Ideal Place for Developers to Build AI Agents Microsoft Foundry is the ideal platform for building, testing, and deploying Agent 365 agents. It provides a unified environment where developers can create enterprise-ready AI agents that are secure, governed, and fully integrated with Microsoft 365. At Ignite, Foundry introduces support for Agent 365 hosted (containerized) agents, giving developers a consistent, scalable runtime managed entirely within the Microsoft cloud. This initial release focuses on hosted agents to provide a fully managed and secure environment from development to deployment. With Foundry, developers can: Author agents quickly using low-code or pro-code workflows Test and iterate in a secure, hosted environment Integrate frontier AI models from Microsoft, OpenAI, Meta, DeepSeek, and xAI Package and deploy agents with Microsoft identity, security, and governance built in Through its native integration with Microsoft Agent 365, Foundry also provides: Foundry-hosted runtime for seamless agent execution Azure Bot Service and Microsoft 365 app integration (Teams, Outlook, M365 Copilot) MCP-connected tools from Microsoft Agent 365 Simplified preparation flow for publishing to M365 Copilot, Teams and BizChat Apps Together, Foundry and Microsoft Agent 365 let organizations build, host, and manage AI agents natively, making them enterprise-ready from day one. What Can Employees Do with Agent 365? With Agent 365, employees can: Automate email triage and meeting preparation Summarize and generate content Locate organizational knowledge instantly Orchestrate cross-system workflows and approvals Advanced teams can also: Integrate internal knowledge bases Create business-specific workflows Extend actions using Foundry APIs and connectors Why It Matters This integration makes Agent 365 agents enterprise-ready out of the box—combining the authoring power of Microsoft Foundry with the security and manageability of the Microsoft 365 ecosystem. IT retains control over policy, compliance, and lifecycle management, while business users gain intelligent agents that work across the tools they already use. Get Started Early access to Microsoft Agent 365 is available through the Frontier preview program, offering hands-on experience with Microsoft’s latest AI innovations. 🔗 [Quickstart — Publish an Agent to A365 GitHub Sample]Hybrid AI Using Foundry Local, Microsoft Foundry and the Agent Framework - Part 2
Background In Part 1, we explored how a local LLM running entirely on your GPU can call out to the cloud for advanced capabilities The theme was: Keep your data local. Pull intelligence in only when necessary. That was local-first AI calling cloud agents as needed. This time, the cloud is in charge, and the user interacts with a Microsoft Foundry hosted agent — but whenever it needs private, sensitive, or user-specific information, it securely “calls back home” to a local agent running next to the user via MCP. Think of it as: The cloud agent = specialist doctor The local agent = your health coach who you trust and who knows your medical history The cloud never sees your raw medical history The local agent only shares the minimum amount of information needed to support the cloud agent reasoning This hybrid intelligence pattern respects privacy while still benefiting from hosted frontier-level reasoning. Disclaimer: The diagnostic results, symptom checker, and any medical guidance provided in this article are for illustrative and informational purposes only. They are not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Architecture Overview The diagram illustrates a hybrid AI workflow where a Microsoft Foundry–hosted agent in Azure works together with a local MCP server running on the user’s machine. The cloud agent receives user symptoms and uses a frontier model (GPT-4.1) for reasoning, but when it needs personal context—like medical history—it securely calls back into the local MCP Health Coach via a dev-tunnel. The local MCP server queries a local GPU-accelerated LLM (Phi-4-mini via Foundry Local) along with stored health-history JSON, returning only the minimal structured background the cloud model needs. The cloud agent then combines both pieces—its own reasoning plus the local context—to produce tailored recommendations, all while sensitive data stays fully on the user’s device. Hosting the agent in Microsoft Foundry on Azure provides a reliable, scalable orchestration layer that integrates directly with Azure identity, monitoring, and governance. It lets you keep your logic, policies, and reasoning engine in the cloud, while still delegating private or resource-intensive tasks to your local environment. This gives you the best of both worlds: enterprise-grade control and flexibility with edge-level privacy and efficiency. Demo Setup Create the Cloud Hosted Agent Using Microsoft Foundry, I created an agent in the UI and pick gpt-4.1 as model: I provided rigorous instructions as system prompt: You are a medical-specialist reasoning assistant for non-emergency triage. You do NOT have access to the patient’s identity or private medical history. A privacy firewall limits what you can see. A local “Personal Health Coach” LLM exists on the user’s device. It holds the patient’s full medical history privately. You may request information from this local model ONLY by calling the MCP tool: get_patient_background(symptoms) This tool returns a privacy-safe, PII-free medical summary, including: - chronic conditions - allergies - medications - relevant risk factors - relevant recent labs - family history relevance - age group Rules: 1. When symptoms are provided, ALWAYS call get_patient_background BEFORE reasoning. 2. NEVER guess or invent medical history — always retrieve it from the local tool. 3. NEVER ask the user for sensitive personal details. The local model handles that. 4. After the tool runs, combine: (a) the patient_background output (b) the user’s reported symptoms to deliver high-level triage guidance. 5. Do not diagnose or prescribe medication. 6. Always end with: “This is not medical advice.” You MUST display the section “Local Health Coach Summary:” containing the JSON returned from the tool before giving your reasoning. Build the Local MCP Server (Local LLM + Personal Medical Memory) The full code for the MCP server is available here but here are the main parts: HTTP JSON-RPC Wrapper (“MCP Gateway”) The first part of the server exposes a minimal HTTP API that accepts MCP-style JSON-RPC messages and routes them to handler functions: Listens on a local port Accepts POST JSON-RPC Normalizes the payload Passes requests to handle_mcp_request() Returns JSON-RPC responses Exposes initialize and tools/list class MCPHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler): def _set_headers(self, status=200): self.send_response(status) self.send_header("Content-Type", "application/json") self.end_headers() def do_GET(self): self._set_headers() self.wfile.write(b"OK") def do_POST(self): content_len = int(self.headers.get("Content-Length", 0)) raw = self.rfile.read(content_len) print("---- RAW BODY ----") print(raw) print("-------------------") try: req = json.loads(raw.decode("utf-8")) except: self._set_headers(400) self.wfile.write(b'{"error":"Invalid JSON"}') return resp = handle_mcp_request(req) self._set_headers() self.wfile.write(json.dumps(resp).encode("utf-8")) Tool Definition: get_patient_background This section defines the tool contract exposed to Azure AI Foundry. The hosted agent sees this tool exactly as if it were a cloud function: Advertises the tool via tools/list Accepts arguments passed from the cloud agent Delegates local reasoning to the GPU LLM Returns structured JSON back to the cloud def handle_mcp_request(req): method = req.get("method") req_id = req.get("id") if method == "tools/list": return { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": req_id, "result": { "tools": [ { "name": "get_patient_background", "description": "Returns anonymized personal medical context using your local LLM.", "inputSchema": { "type": "object", "properties": { "symptoms": {"type": "string"} }, "required": ["symptoms"] } } ] } } if method == "tools/call": tool = req["params"]["name"] args = req["params"]["arguments"] if tool == "get_patient_background": symptoms = args.get("symptoms", "") summary = summarize_patient_locally(symptoms) return { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": req_id, "result": { "content": [ { "type": "text", "text": json.dumps(summary) } ] } } Local GPU LLM Caller (Foundry Local Integration) This is where personalization happens — entirely on your machine, not in the cloud: Calls the local GPU LLM through Foundry Local Injects private medical data (loaded from a file or memory) Produces anonymized structured outputs Logs debug info so you can see when local inference is running FOUNDRY_LOCAL_BASE_URL = "http://127.0.0.1:52403" FOUNDRY_LOCAL_CHAT_URL = f"{FOUNDRY_LOCAL_BASE_URL}/v1/chat/completions" FOUNDRY_LOCAL_MODEL_ID = "Phi-4-mini-instruct-cuda-gpu:5" def summarize_patient_locally(symptoms: str): print("[LOCAL] Calling Foundry Local GPU model...") payload = { "model": FOUNDRY_LOCAL_MODEL_ID, "messages": [ {"role": "system", "content": PERSONAL_SYSTEM_PROMPT}, {"role": "user", "content": symptoms} ], "max_tokens": 300, "temperature": 0.1 } resp = requests.post( FOUNDRY_LOCAL_CHAT_URL, headers={"Content-Type": "application/json"}, data=json.dumps(payload), timeout=60 ) llm_content = resp.json()["choices"][0]["message"]["content"] print("[LOCAL] Raw content:\n", llm_content) cleaned = _strip_code_fences(llm_content) return json.loads(cleaned) Start a Dev Tunnel Now we need to do some plumbing work to make sure the cloud can resolve the MCP endpoint. I used Azure Dev Tunnels for this demo. The snippet below shows how to set that up in 4 PowerShell commands: PS C:\Windows\system32> winget install Microsoft.DevTunnel PS C:\Windows\system32> devtunnel create mcp-health PS C:\Windows\system32> devtunnel port create mcp-health -p 8081 --protocol http PS C:\Windows\system32> devtunnel host mcp-health I have now a public endpoint: https://xxxxxxxxx.devtunnels.ms:8081 Wire Everything Together in Azure AI Foundry Now let's us the UI to add a new custom tool as MCP for our agent: And point to the public endpoint created previously: Voila, we're done with the setup, let's test it Demo: The Cloud Agent Talks to Your Local Private LLM I am going to use a simple prompt in the agent: “Hi, I’ve been feeling feverish, fatigued, and a bit short of breath since yesterday. Should I be worried?” Disclaimer: The diagnostic results and any medical guidance provided in this article are for illustrative and informational purposes only. They are not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Below is the sequence shown in real time: Conclusion — Why This Hybrid Pattern Matters Hybrid AI lets you place intelligence exactly where it belongs: high-value reasoning in the cloud, sensitive or contextual data on the local machine. This protects privacy while reducing cloud compute costs—routine lookups, context gathering, and personal history retrieval can all run on lightweight local models instead of expensive frontier models. This pattern also unlocks powerful real-world applications: local financial data paired with cloud financial analysis, on-device coding knowledge combined with cloud-scale refactoring, or local corporate context augmenting cloud automation agents. In industrial and edge environments, local agents can sit directly next to the action—embedded in factory sensors, cameras, kiosks, or ambient IoT devices—providing instant, private intelligence while the cloud handles complex decision-making. Hybrid AI turns every device into an intelligent collaborator, and every cloud agent into a specialist that can safely leverage local expertise. References Get started with Foundry Local - Foundry Local: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-foundry/foundry-local/get-started?view=foundry-classic Using MCP tools with Agents (Microsoft Agent Framework) — https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/user-guide/model-context-protocol/using-mcp-tools Microsoft Learn Build Agents using Model Context Protocol on Azure — https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/developer/ai/intro-agents-mcp Microsoft Learn Full demo repo available here.Beyond the Model: Empower your AI with Data Grounding and Model Training
Discover how Microsoft Foundry goes beyond foundational models to deliver enterprise-grade AI solutions. Learn how data grounding, model tuning, and agentic orchestration unlock faster time-to-value, improved accuracy, and scalable workflows across industries.
Unable to publish Foundry agent to M365 copilot or Teams
I’m encountering an issue while publishing an agent in Microsoft Foundry to M365 Copilot or Teams. After creating the agent and Foundry resource, the process automatically created a Bot Service resource. However, I noticed that this resource has the same ID as the Application ID shown in the configuration. Is this expected behavior? If not, how should I resolve it? I followed the steps in the official documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-foundry/agents/how-to/publish-copilot?view=foundry Despite this, I keep getting the following error: There was a problem submitting the agent. Response status code does not indicate success: 401 (Unauthorized). Status Code: 401 Any guidance on what might be causing this and how to fix it would be greatly appreciated.
Announcing Elastic MCP Server in Microsoft Foundry Tool Catalog
Introduction The future of enterprise AI is agentic - driven by intelligent, context-aware agents that deliver real business value. Microsoft Foundry is committed to enabling developers with the tools and integrations they need to build, deploy, and govern these advanced AI solutions. Today, we are excited to announce that Elastic MCP Server is now discoverable in the Microsoft Foundry Tool Catalog, unlocking seamless access to Elastic’s industry-leading vector search capabilities for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) scenarios. Seamless Integration: Elastic Meets Microsoft Foundry This integration is a major milestone in our ongoing effort to foster an open, extensible AI ecosystem. With Elastic MCP Server now available in the Azure MCP registry, developers can easily connect their agents to Elastic’s powerful search and analytics engine using the Model Context Protocol (MCP). This ensures that agents built on Microsoft Foundry are grounded in trusted, enterprise-grade data - delivering accurate, relevant, and verifiable responses. Create Elastic cloud hosted deployments or Serverless Search Projects through the Microsoft Marketplace or the Azure Portal Discoverability: Elastic MCP Server is listed as a remote MCP server in the Azure MCP Registry and the Foundry Tool Catalog. Multi-Agent Workflows: Enable collaborative agent scenarios via the A2A protocol. Unlocking Vector Search for RAG Elastic’s advanced vector search capabilities are now natively accessible to Foundry agents, enabling powerful Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) workflows: Semantic Search: Agents can perform hybrid and vector-based searches over enterprise data, retrieving the most relevant context for grounding LLM responses. Customizable Retrieval: With Elastic’s Agent Builder, you can define your custom tools specific to your indices and datasets and expose them to Foundry Agents via MCP. Enterprise Grounding: Ensure agent outputs are always based on proprietary, up-to-date data, reducing hallucinations and improving trust. Deployment: Getting Started Follow these steps to integrate Elastic MCP Server with your Foundry agents: Within your Foundry project, you can either: Go to Build in the top menu, then select Tools. Click on Connect a Tool. Select the Catalog tab, search for Elasticsearch, and click Create. Once prompted, configure the Elasticsearch details by providing a name, your Kibana endpoint, and your Elasticsearch API key. Click on Use in an agent and select an existing Agent to integrate Elastic MCP Server. Alternatively, within your Agent: Click on Tools. Click Add, then select Custom. Search for Elasticsearch, add it, and configure the tool as described above. The tool will now appear in your Agent’s configuration. You are all set to now interact with your Elasticsearch projects and deployments! Conclusion & Next Steps The addition of Elastic MCP Server to the Foundry Tool Catalog empowers developers to build the next generation of intelligent, grounded AI agents - combining Microsoft’s agentic platform with Elastic’s cutting-edge vector search. Whether you’re building RAG-powered copilots, automating workflows, or orchestrating multi-agent systems, this integration accelerates your journey from prototype to production. Ready to get started? Get started with Elastic via the Azure Marketplace or Azure portal. New users get a 7-day free trial! Explore agent creation in Microsoft Foundryportal and try the Foundry Tool Catalog. Deep dive into Elastic MCP and Agent Builder Join us at Microsoft Ignite 2025 for live demos, deep dives, and more on building agentic AI with Elastic and Microsoft Foundry!
