Production ready architectures for AI apps and agents on Marketplace
Why “production‑ready” architecture matters for Marketplace AI apps and agents A working AI prototype is not the same as a production‑ready AI app in Microsoft Marketplace. Marketplace solutions are expected to operate reliably in real customer environments, alongside mission‑critical workloads and under enterprise constraints. As a result, AI apps published through Marketplace must meet a higher bar than “it works in a demo.” You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. Production‑ready Marketplace AI apps must assume: Alignment with enterprise expectations and Azure well‑architected AI principles, including cost optimization, security, reliability, operational excellence, and performance efficiency Architectural decisions made early are difficult to reverse, especially once customers, tenants, and billing relationships are in place A higher trust bar from customers, who expect Marketplace solutions to be Microsoft‑vetted, certified, and safe to run in production Customers come to Marketplace expecting solutions that are ready to run, ready to scale, and ready to be supported—not experiments. This post focuses on the architectural principles and patterns required to meet those expectations. Specific services and implementation details are covered later in the series. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Aligning offer type and architecture early sets you up for success A strong indicator of a smooth Marketplace journey is early alignment between offer type and solution architecture. Offer type defines more than how an AI app is listed—it establishes clear roles and responsibilities between publishers and customers, which in turn shape architectural boundaries. Across all other offer types, architecture must clearly answer three questions: Who owns the runtime? Where does the AI execute? Who controls updates and ongoing operations? These decisions will vary depending on whether the solution resides in the customer’s or publisher’s tenant based on the attributes associated with the following transactable marketplace offer types: SaaS offers, where the AI runtime lives in the publisher’s environment and architecture must support multitenant AI app design, strong isolation, and centralized operations Container offers, where workloads run in the customer’s Kubernetes environment and architecture emphasizes portability and clear operational assumptions Virtual Machine offers, where preconfigured environments run in the customer’s subscription and architecture is more tightly coupled to the OS and infrastructure footprint Azure Managed Applications, where the solution is deployed into the customer's subscription and architecture must balance customer control with defined lifecycle boundaries. What makes this model distinctive is its flexibility: an Azure Managed Application can package containers, virtual machines, or a combination of both — making it a natural fit for solutions that require customer-controlled infrastructure without sacrificing publisher-managed operations. The packaging choice shapes the underlying architecture, but the managed application wrapper is what defines how the solution is deployed, updated, and governed within the customer's environment. Architecture decisions naturally reinforce Marketplace requirements and reduce certification and operational friction later. Key factors that benefit from early alignment include: Roles and responsibilities, such as who operates the AI runtime and who is responsible for uptime, patching, scaling, and ongoing operations Proximity to data, particularly for AI solutions that rely on customer‑specific or proprietary data, where placement affects performance, data movement, and compliance Core architectural building blocks of AI apps Designing a production‑ready AI app starts with treating the solution as a system, not a single service. AI apps—especially agent‑based solutions—are composed of multiple cooperating layers that together enable reasoning, action, and safe operation at scale. At a high level, most production‑ready AI apps include the following building blocks: Interaction layer, which serves as the entry point for users or systems and is responsible for authentication, request shaping, and consistent responses Orchestration layer, which coordinates reasoning, tool selection, workflow execution, and retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) flows across multi‑step interactions Model endpoints, which provide inference and generation capabilities and introduce distinct latency, cost, and dependency characteristics Data sources, including vector stores, operational data, documents, and logs that the AI system reasons over Control planes, such as identity, configuration, policy enforcement, feature flags, and secrets management, which govern behavior without redeploying core logic Observability, which enables tracing, monitoring, and diagnosis of agent decisions, actions, and outcomes Networking, which connects components using a zero‑trust posture where every call is authenticated and outbound access is explicitly controlled Together, these components form the foundation of most Marketplace‑ready AI architectures. How they are composed—and where boundaries are drawn—varies by offer type, tenancy model, and customer requirements. Specific services, patterns, and implementation guidance for each layer are explored later in the series. Tenancy design choices as an early architectural decision One of the earliest and most consequential architectural decisions is where the AI solution is hosted. Does it run in the publisher’s tenant, or is it deployed into the customer’s tenant? This choice establishes foundational boundaries and is difficult to change later without significant redesign. If the solution runs in the publisher’s tenant, it is inherently multi‑tenant and must be designed with strong logical isolation across customers. If it runs in the customer’s tenant, deployments are typically single‑tenant by default, with isolation provided through infrastructure boundaries. Many Marketplace AI apps fall between these extremes, making it essential to define the AI tenancy model early. Common tenancy approaches include: Publisher‑hosted, multi‑tenant solutions, where a shared AI runtime serves multiple customers and requires strict isolation of customer data, inference requests, identity, and cost attribution Customer‑hosted, single‑tenant deployments, where each customer operates an isolated instance within their own Azure subscription, often preferred for regulated or tightly controlled environments Hybrid models, which combine centralized AI services with customer‑hosted data or execution layers and require carefully defined trust and access boundaries Tenancy decisions influence several core architectural dimensions, including: Identity and access boundaries, which define how users and agents authenticate and act across tenants Data isolation, including how customer data is stored, processed, and protected Model usage patterns, such as shared models versus tenant‑specific models Cost allocation and scale, including how usage is tracked and attributed per customer These considerations are not implementation details—they shape how the AI system behaves, scales, and is governed in production. Reference architecture guidance for multi‑tenant AI and machine learning solutions in the Azure Architecture Center explores these tradeoffs in more detail. Understanding your customer’s needs Designing a production‑ready AI architecture starts with understanding the environment your customers expect your solution to operate in. Marketplace customers vary widely in their security posture, compliance obligations, operational practices, and tolerance for change. Architectures that reflect those realities reduce friction during onboarding, certification, and long‑term operation. Key customer considerations that shape architecture include: Security and compliance expectations, such as industry regulations, internal governance policies, or regional data requirements Target environments, including whether customers expect solutions to run in their own Azure subscription or are comfortable consuming centrally hosted services Change and outage windows, where operational constraints or seasonal restrictions require predictable and controlled updates Architectural alignment with customer needs is not about designing for every edge case. It is about making intentional tradeoffs that reflect how customers will deploy, operate, and depend on your AI solution in production. Specific security controls, compliance enforcement mechanisms, and operational policies are explored later in the series. This section establishes the architectural mindset required to support them. Separating environments for safe iteration Production AI systems must evolve continuously while remaining stable for customers. Separating environments is how publishers enable safe iteration without destabilizing live usage—and how customers maintain confidence when adopting and operating AI solutions in their own environments. From the publisher’s perspective, environment separation enables: Iteration on prompts, models, and orchestration logic without impacting production customers Validation of behavior changes before rollout, especially for AI‑driven systems where small changes can produce materially different outcomes Controlled release strategies that reduce operational risk From the customer’s perspective, environment separation shapes how the solution fits into their own development and operational practices: Where the solution is deployed across development, staging, and production environments How deployments are repeated or promoted, particularly when the solution runs in the customer’s tenant Whether environments can be recreated predictably, or whether customers are forced to manually reconfigure deployments with each iteration When AI solutions are deployed into the customer’s tenant, environment design becomes especially important. Customers should not be required to reverse‑engineer deployment logic, recreate environments from scratch, or re‑establish trust boundaries every time the solution evolves. These concerns should be addressed architecturally, not deferred to operational workarounds. Environment separation is therefore not just a DevOps choice—it is an architectural decision. It influences identity boundaries, deployment topology, validation strategies, and the shared operational contract between publisher and customer. Designing for AI‑specific scalability patterns AI workloads do not scale like traditional web or CRUD‑based applications. While front‑end and API layers may follow familiar scaling patterns, AI systems introduce behaviors that require different architectural assumptions. Production‑ready AI architectures must account for: Bursty inference demand, where usage can spike unpredictably based on user behavior or downstream automation Long‑running or multi‑step agent workflows, which may span tools, data sources, and time Model‑driven latency and cost characteristics, which influence throughput and responsiveness independently of application logic As a result, scalability decisions often vary by layer. Horizontal scaling is typically most effective in interaction, orchestration, and retrieval components, while model endpoints may require separate capacity planning, isolation, or throttling strategies. Treating identity as an architectural boundary Identity is foundational to Marketplace AI apps, but architecture must plan for it explicitly. Identity decisions define trust boundaries across users, agents, and services, and shape how the solution scales, secures access, and meets compliance requirements. Key architectural considerations include: Microsoft Entra ID as a foundation, where identity is treated as a core control plane rather than a late‑stage integration How users sign in, including: Their own corporate Microsoft Entra ID tenant B2B scenarios where one Entra ID tenant trusts another B2C identity providers for customer‑facing experiences How tenants authenticate, particularly in multi‑tenant or cross‑organization scenarios How AI agents act on behalf of users, including delegated access, authorization scope, and auditability How services communicate securely, using a zero‑trust posture where every call is authenticated and authorized Treating identity as an architectural boundary helps ensure that trust relationships remain explicit, enforceable, and consistent across tenants and environments. This foundation is critical for supporting secure operation, compliance enforcement, and future tenant‑linking scenarios. Designing for observability and auditability Production‑ready AI apps must be observable and auditable by design. Marketplace customers expect visibility into how systems behave in production, and publishers need clear insight to diagnose issues, operate reliably, and meet enterprise trust and compliance expectations. Key architectural considerations include: End‑to‑end observability, covering user interactions, agent reasoning steps, tool invocations, and downstream service calls Clear audit trails, capturing who initiated an action, what the AI system did, and how decisions were executed—especially when agents act on behalf of users Tenant‑aware visibility, ensuring logs, metrics, and traces are correctly attributed without exposing data across tenants Operational transparency, enabling effective troubleshooting, incident response, and continuous improvement without ad‑hoc instrumentation AI app observability design goes beyond infrastructure health. It must also account for AI‑specific behavior, such as prompt execution, model selection, retrieval outcomes, and tool usage. Without this visibility, diagnosing failures, validating changes, or explaining outcomes becomes difficult in real customer environments. Auditability is equally critical. Identity, access, and action histories must be traceable to support security reviews, regulatory obligations, and customer trust—particularly in regulated or enterprise settings. Common architectural pitfalls in Marketplace AI apps Even experienced teams run into similar challenges when moving from an AI prototype to a production‑ready Marketplace solution. The following pitfalls often surface when architectural decisions are deferred or made implicitly. Common pitfalls include: Treating AI as a single service instead of a system, where model inference is implemented without considering orchestration, data access, identity, observability, and operational boundaries Hard‑coding tenant assumptions, such as assuming a single tenant, identity model, or deployment topology, which becomes difficult to unwind as customer requirements diversify Not planning for a resilient model strategy, leaving the architecture fragile when model versions change, capabilities evolve, or providers introduce breaking behavior Assuming data lives within the same boundary as the solution, when in practice it may reside in a different tenant, subscription, or control plane Tightly coupling prompt logic to application code, making it harder to iterate on AI behavior, validate changes, or manage risk without full redeployments Assuming issues can be fixed after go‑live, which underestimates the cost and complexity of changing architecture once customers, subscriptions, and trust relationships are in place While these pitfalls may be caused by a lack of technical skill on the customer’s side, they could typically emerge when architectural decisions are postponed in favor of speed, or when AI behavior is treated as an isolated concern rather than part of a production system. What’s next in the journey The architectural decisions made early—around offer type, tenancy, identity, environments, and observability—establish the foundation on which everything else is built. When these choices are intentional, they reduce friction as the solution evolves, scales, and adapts to real customer needs. The next set of posts builds on this foundation, exploring different dimensions of operating, securing, and evolving Marketplace AI apps in production. See the next post in the series: Securing AI apps and agents on Microsoft Marketplace | Microsoft Community Hub. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessSecuring AI agents at scale: Identity, governance, and zero trust
AI agents are reshaping enterprise operations. They reason over data, call APIs, trigger workflows, and act on behalf of users — often without human intervention. IDC projects 1.3 billion AI agents in production by 2028, and Capgemini research shows four out of five organizations plan to integrate agents within the next three years. The race to build is already underway. The harder question — one most organizations are not yet equipped to answer — is: how do you operate AI agents safely at scale? Deploying a demo-ready agent is table stakes. Making that same agent production-grade, with proper identity, access controls, governance, and runtime protections, is an entirely different engineering and operational challenge. Why agentic AI changes the security equation Traditional software executes deterministic logic. An AI agent reasons, plans, and takes action — dynamically, across systems it was never explicitly programmed to touch. When connected to enterprise APIs and data, an agent stops being a chatbot and starts functioning as a digital worker. That shift has direct security implications: Agents can trigger business processes and access sensitive data autonomously Their capabilities expand as new tools and Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers are connected They behave non-deterministically, making static policy controls insufficient A compromised or misconfigured agent can have a large blast radius Most organizations are deploying into this environment without the governance infrastructure to match. The result is growing agent sprawl, unclear accountability, and unmanaged risk — exactly the conditions that security and compliance teams lose sleep over. A three-pillar framework for secure agent operations Securing AI agents at enterprise scale requires a structured approach. The following three-pillar framework provides a practical foundation: Manage, Govern, and Protect. Pillar 1: Manage — build an agent registry and enforce identity The first pillar focuses on visibility. You cannot secure what you cannot see, and you cannot control what you cannot identify. Every agent in your environment must have a unique, managed identity — a first-class identity type distinct from human accounts, service principals, and workload identities. Without it, agents are anonymous automation: untraceable, un-auditable, and uncontrollable. With agent identity in place, organizations gain: Traceability — a full record of what each agent accessed, when, and in what context Auditability — the clean audit trail that security and compliance teams require Granular control — the ability to restrict, block, or revoke access based on policy The operational target is an agent registry: a centralized fleet view of every agent across the organization, including those built on non-Microsoft platforms. Operators should be able to inspect agent metadata, validate ownership, review configuration, and block agents directly from this registry. This fleet management capability is what separates enterprise-grade deployments from uncontrolled agent sprawl. Pillar 2: Govern — automate agent lifecycle management The second pillar addresses the operational reality that emerges once agents number in the hundreds or thousands: manual governance doesn't scale. Three foundational practices make lifecycle governance work at scale. Assign a sponsor to every agent Each agent must have a designated owner — a person or team accountable for its activity and access decisions from creation through retirement. Orphaned agents, where no human is accountable, represent a high-risk surface area. Sponsorship creates a clear chain of accountability that also supports incident response when something goes wrong. Automate lifecycle policies Agents change hands, move between teams, and eventually retire. Access granted at creation may be inappropriate six months later. Lifecycle policies — covering creation, handoff, access review, and decommissioning — must be automated to remain effective at scale. The goal is to remove routine human intervention from the process while ensuring every action is logged and auditable. Enforce just-in-time, time-bound access Agents should never hold standing permissions. Access should be intentionally scoped, time-limited, and removed when no longer required. This directly addresses permission accumulation — one of the most common and underappreciated risks in agentic deployments, where an agent gradually gains access to resources far beyond its original purpose. The full lifecycle flow runs from creation (sponsor assigned, access requested and approved) through active operation (periodic access reviews) to retirement (identity deleted, access expired). Every stage should generate an auditable record. Pillar 3: Protect — secure agents at runtime The third pillar covers production runtime security — what happens once agents are live and actively accessing corporate resources. This is where risk is most dynamic and where a defense-in-depth approach is non-negotiable. Agents require access to file stores, APIs, calendars, MCP servers, and third-party SaaS systems to deliver value. Each of those connections is also an exposure point for prompt injection, data exfiltration, or access to malicious content. Three mechanisms form the runtime protection stack. Conditional access policies for agents The same conditional access framework used for human identities can be applied to agents — enforcing policy based on agent identity and operating context. This enables broad baseline protections across the entire agent fleet, with stricter controls for high-impact agents or sensitive scenarios. Access decisions happen continuously and automatically, not as one-off reviews. Risk signal detection and automated response Risky agent behaviors — sudden access spikes, repeated resource access failures, or attempts to reach unfamiliar systems — generate signals that can trigger automated responses. Policies can block the agent, limit its blast radius, and alert security operations for investigation, all without manual intervention. Network-layer controls Identity and access controls alone are not sufficient. Content inspection, threat-intelligence-based URL filtering, and file-level network filtering add additional layers of protection, particularly against agents that interact with external systems or user-supplied inputs. No single control point should be relied upon exclusively. Understanding agent blueprints and identity hierarchy One of the most important architectural concepts for enterprise agent governance is the distinction between an agent blueprint and an agent identity. An agent blueprint is a reusable, tenant-scoped template that defines the security, authentication, and governance characteristics for a class of agents. It sets the operational boundary: what the agent is allowed to do, which resources it can access, and which policies govern its behavior. An agent identity is a specific instance derived from a blueprint. One blueprint can generate many identities, each inheriting the governance constraints defined in the template. This parent-child model delivers concrete benefits across roles: Developers get a predictable, consistent identity model for every agent they build IT and security teams gain class-level audit trails and lifecycle control without per-instance overhead End users and customers can trust that every agent instance operates within the boundaries set at design time Governance intent — authentication, authorization, execution boundaries — is defined once and applied consistently across the entire agent family derived from that blueprint. MCP tool governance: Managing agent interoperability Modern agents rarely operate in isolation. They connect to external tools and services through protocols like MCP (Model Context Protocol), enabling tasks like retrieving documents from SharePoint, sending email, scheduling meetings, and coordinating with other agents. The power of this connectivity is real. A single agent instruction can simultaneously invoke multiple MCP servers — retrieving a file, generating a shareable link, sending it via email, and creating a calendar event — all in one natural-language-triggered flow. That same power is also a governance surface. Not every available MCP tool is appropriate for every agent, and not every tool is safe for production use without review. The right approach is to treat tool access like data access: intentional, reviewed, and tied to the agent's identity. Access to specific MCP servers should be formally requested, approved by IT or security, and documented as part of the agent onboarding process — not left to developer discretion at build time. Five practices for production-ready agent security The framework above translates into concrete practices for teams building and operating agents today. Build identity in, not on. Retrofitting governance onto an existing agent fleet is significantly harder than starting with identity baked into the build process. Every new agent should have an identity, a sponsor, and a defined access scope before it ships. Design for the fleet, not the agent. The practices and templates you establish for one agent should scale to hundreds. Reusable blueprints, automated lifecycle policies, and standardized onboarding patterns are investments that compound as agent counts grow. Threat-model before you deploy. For each production agent, work through what data it can access, what actions it can take, what happens under a malicious prompt, and what the blast radius looks like if it is compromised. Threat modeling surfaces risks that capability-focused development naturally misses. Automate governance alongside capability. The instinct in AI development is to automate what the agent does. Apply that same instinct to how the agent is governed. Lifecycle policies, access reviews, risk signal responses, and audit log generation should all run without manual orchestration. Apply zero trust to agents explicitly. Least privilege, continuous verification, and assume-breach principles apply to agents just as they do to humans and workloads. Agents that accumulate permissions over time, or that operate without continuous policy enforcement, are a liability as the threat landscape evolves. Distributing governed agents through Microsoft Marketplace The governance architecture described in this post — Entra agent identity, blueprints, lifecycle policies, and zero trust controls — applies equally to software development companies distributing agents through Microsoft Marketplace. These constructs are what determine whether a third-party agent can be trusted and managed by the enterprise customers who purchase it. With Agent 365 now generally available, enterprise customers have a control plane for managing every agent in their Microsoft 365 tenant, including agents procured from Marketplace. A software company-built agent that arrives without a registered Entra agent identity will surface as unmanaged in the customer's registry, requiring manual remediation before it can be approved for use — a friction point that directly delays adoption. For software company agents to pass enterprise IT and security review in an Agent 365-enabled tenant, three things must be in place from day one: Registered Entra agent identity — enables the customer to apply their own conditional access and lifecycle policies to the agent A well-defined agent blueprint — tells the customer's IT and security teams what the agent is permitted to do, what resources it accesses, and what governance characteristics it carries Declared and scoped MCP tool access — allows the customer's admin to review and approve tool permissions before the agent goes live A software company agent that ships with these elements in place signals it was built for enterprise operations from the start — and that trust signal is increasingly what separates agents that clear procurement review from those that stall in it. The competitive case for getting this right Organizations that build secure, governed agent infrastructure do not just reduce risk — they accelerate adoption. When security and operations teams can trust the agents in their environment, the internal friction that slows deployment decreases. Partners and software companies that deliver governed, auditable agent solutions create durable differentiation compared to those shipping ungoverned agents into customer environments. The companies winning in the agentic AI space are not just building agents. They are building the platform, practices, and governance infrastructure around them. That is what enterprise customers are increasingly requiring, and it is what separates a compelling demo from a production-grade solution. The principles have not changed — identity, least privilege, auditability, and defense in depth. What has changed is that those principles now apply to a new class of actor in the enterprise: the AI agent. *This blog is based on the Security for SDC Series Season 2 Episode 4: Securing and Governing AI Agents Before They Go Live presented by Ryan Nguyen and Paul Woo View past and upcoming sessions in the Security for software development company series: Security for SDC Series: Securing the Agentic EraDesign CI/CD for AI apps and agents selling through Microsoft Marketplace
In the previous post, Design observability for AI apps and agents selling through Microsoft Marketplace, we focused on observability—making AI app and agent behavior visible and explainable. Execution paths, retries, degradation patterns, and agent decisions can now be observed across environments and tenants. With that visibility in place, a new challenge emerges: how do you safely modify an AI system whose behavior you can now observe? You can always get curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Using continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) to control AI system evolution AI apps and agents introduce numerous novel ways that production behavior can change. In addition to application code, updates to configuration, prompts, models, and guardrails, agent logic can alter execution, cost, and outcomes—often immediately and across tenants. CI/CD defines how these changes reach production. Without a structured delivery path, behavior‑shaping updates risk entering runtime without validation or recovery paths, making system behavior difficult to explain or reverse once customers encounter it. AI solutions are typically built and operated as cloud applications. Software delivery of cloud services, and the supporting components that enable it, remains part of the CI/CD pipeline, and any instability in these foundational components directly propagates into AI behavior. AI systems add two additional sources of change that require explicit control. MLOps governs model evolution. Agents introduce further variability, as agent logic and configuration evolve. CI/CD is what prevents these change vectors from interacting unpredictably across both publisher and customer environments. Core CI/CD requirements for AI apps and agents For AI apps and agents, CI/CD determines whether deployment strategies can be applied safely. Progressive rollouts, ring deployments, feature flags, and kill switches all rely on pipelines that isolate change, validate behavior, and support rollback. Observability provides insight into behavior; CI/CD controls when and how that behavior is allowed to change. CI/CD must reliably provision, configure, and promote cloud native infrastructure, including but not limited to front-end services, APIs, storage, identity, and networking across environments. Agent behavior depends directly on the stability of the platform it runs on. AI systems introduce additional CI/CD requirements through MLOps and agents. Model versions, routing logic, and evaluation configurations must move through pipelines as deployable artifacts, with isolation, validation, and rollback built in. Changes to models affect latency, cost, and outcomes even when application code remains unchanged, making promotion controls necessary at the model layer. A well-run CI/CD pipeline should positively impact AI models and agents in the following ways: Change isolation ensures code, prompts, models, and configuration evolve independently. Artifact versioning beyond code treats prompts, policies, tools, and models as release assets. Behavioral validation evaluates outcomes, constraints, and patterns rather than single responses. Safe promotion controls gate model and agent releases based on observed behavior. Rollback readiness allows fast reversion when model or agent behavior degrades. Building behavioral baselines for AI solutions using CI/CD Before an AI system is built by a pipeline, it is built by a team. CI/CD build pipelines are where these contributions are stitched together. Product managers define scope and constraints. UX designers shape how behavior is experienced. Full‑stack engineers assemble application logic. AI engineers wire reasoning and tools. Data engineers and data scientists curate data and models. In AI systems, a build does more than compile code. It captures a shared agreement across roles about what the system is expected to do. Application code, orchestration logic, prompts, configuration, guardrails, routing rules, and trained or fine‑tuned models are assembled into a single versioned artifact. That artifact represents a coordinated snapshot of intent, behavior, and constraints. This coordination must declare which models, prompts, policies, and tool definitions are included. Implicit dependencies—such as dynamically changing prompts or unpinned models—break shared understanding across teams and introduce behavior changes without acknowledgement. A successful build confirms that contributions from multiple roles are compatible and executable together. It does not decide when customers see the change. That decision belongs later, where behavior can be evaluated deliberately, enforced by build pipelines that are separating assembly from release. Testing AI solutions with CI/CD pipelines When an agent is updated, the first task is straightforward: the agent’s code changes. Logic is refined, tools are added, limits are adjusted. That change moves through the CI/CD pipeline, where it is built, packaged, and validated in isolation. At this point, the focus is narrow—does this agent compile, configure, and execute as expected? The second step widens the lens. The update now moves through testing aligned to the layers beneath it. For cloud solutions, tests confirm the platform still behaves as assumed: infrastructure provisions correctly, APIs and identity boundaries remain intact, and dependencies remain reachable. These tests ensure the environment can support execution before behavior is evaluated. Next, MLOps tests assess whether model behavior still aligns with system expectations. New model versions, routing logic, or provider changes are evaluated for cost, latency, and outcome consistency. The goal is not identical responses, but bounded behavior within known limits. Finally, testing shifts to the agentic system as a whole. Other agents need to be made aware of the new capabilities. When you go to update the agent the first job you have to do is update the agent code. The second job you have to do is to use your CI/CD pipeline to build, test and release that code. The third job is to test that the entire agentic system is running smoothly together. At this stage, testing answers a different question: not does the agent work, but does the system still work together. CI/CD release management as team coordination Once testing confirms that behavior remains within expected bounds, release management determines how changes are introduced and observed under real conditions. In AI systems, release management must reflect where change originates and how risk propagates across layers. Within the cloud services that support the AI solution, release management focuses on scope and blast‑radius control. Examples include staged rollout of infrastructure updates, controlled exposure of new API versions, and limiting configuration changes to specific environments or tenants before going global. These steps allow both publisher and customer teams to observe stability and dependency behavior under load. For MLOps, release management governs behavioral shifts introduced by model changes. Common patterns include routing a small percentage of requests to a new model version, limiting exposure to specific customer segments, or restricting usage to defined request types. This allows teams to compare cost, latency, and outcome patterns before expanding exposure. For agents, release management controls how new behaviors surface. Prompt updates, tool access changes, or guardrail adjustments may be released to specific workflows, tenants, or traffic slices. This makes it possible to observe planning depth, retry behavior, and termination patterns without affecting all users simultaneously. Rollback readiness remains essential. Release paths must allow fast reversion using version pinning or traffic shifting rather than full redeployment. Release management creates space to observe, adjust, and respond before changes reach full Marketplace scale. Deployment as a shared boundary Effective deployment pipelines ensure that software, models, and agent behavior enter production together, with changes explicitly acknowledged and observable. Versioning and rollback remain available, but deployment defines the moment when coordinated decisions become customer‑visible. Cloud service—For the software, deployment governs application code and supporting platform changes. These remain necessary foundations. Application binaries, infrastructure templates, runtime configuration, and orchestration must enter production in a known, versioned state so operational behavior can be correlated with specific changes. MLOps—Model version updates, routing rules, provider switches, and evaluation configurations can change system behavior without modifying application code. Deployment pipelines must therefore treat these artifacts as deployable units, subject to the same versioning, promotion, and rollback mechanics as software releases. Agent—Deployment includes behavior‑defining inputs such as prompts and system messages, tool definitions and permissions, guardrails, and execution limits. Changes directly affect how agents plan, execute, and terminate work. Allowing these inputs to change outside deployment pipelines breaks traceability and weakens accountability across teams. How CI/CD best practices positively impact marketplace readiness Customers expect updates to arrive in predictable ways. They expect that behavior changes can be explained, that issues can be reversed without prolonged disruption, and that outcomes remain consistent across trials and production use. CI/CD pipelines make these expectations achievable by ensuring changes are versioned, staged, and observable as they move through environments. Reliability depends on limiting how far unstable behavior propagates. Billing accuracy depends on knowing when changes alter execution paths, token usage, or metering logic. Compliance depends on being able to identify which versions of software, models, and agent configurations were active at a given time. Offer type shapes how CI/CD is applied. For transactable SaaS offers, CI/CD operates entirely within the publisher’s environment. For container offers and Azure Managed Applications, deployment boundaries extend to customer environments requiring a CI/CD hand-off between publisher and customer pipelines. Publisher CI/CD responsibilities for AI solutions Publishers must define what constitutes a deployable change. Updates to software, models, prompts, agent configuration, guardrails, or limits should not enter customer environments or generally available code implicitly. Each change that can influence behavior must flow through the publisher’s CI/CD pipelines so it can be versioned, observed, and reversed if necessary. Additionally, CI/CD pipelines require validation and approval before promotion, ensuring that behavior‑altering updates do not reach customers without visibility or control. Publishers are also responsible for communicating behavior changes. Customers should be able to understand when updates affect outcomes, performance, or cost profiles. Customers should never experience silent behavior shifts, undocumented updates, or releases that cannot be recovered cleanly. When those occur, trust erodes quickly. In this context, CI/CD is part of how publishers establish reliability, accountability, and trust with Marketplace customers. Customer’s responsibility: CI/CD across environments (Dev / Stage / Prod) While publishers own CI/CD pipelines, customers play an important role in how AI systems are evaluated and adopted across environments. AI behavior often manifests differently across Dev, Stage, and Prod because operating conditions change as systems move toward real usage. As environments scale, dependency interactions increase, traffic patterns diversify, and tenant behavior becomes less predictable—revealing execution paths and constraints that are not exercised earlier. These differences affect how behavior appears during evaluation and rollout. To keep behavior interpretable across environments, pipeline structure matters. CI/CD pipelines, validation steps, and promotion criteria should operate consistently so signals observed earlier can be understood later. When these mechanics diverge between environments, it becomes difficult to attribute changes in behavior to specific updates or conditions. Staging environments serve as a behavioral proving ground. They allow customers to observe retries, limits, degradation paths, and cost behavior under conditions that more closely resemble production. Trials often run against production‑like configurations, which means CI/CD gaps surface early. When behavior differs from expectations, the consistency of pipelines determines how quickly teams can diagnose and respond. What’s next in the journey With CI/CD establishing control over how AI systems change, the next focus is how those changes are introduced safely at runtime. The following posts cover deployment strategies, progressive rollouts, and operational patterns that allow AI apps and agents to evolve while remaining stable, observable, and ready for Marketplace scale. Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessHow to get heard by Microsoft and win more together
At Ultimate Partner LIVE Bellevue, May 11-13, some of the sharpest practitioners in the Microsoft ecosystem are coming together to share what works. These are candid, practitioner-led sessions built for senior leaders who need to walk away with something they can use, not a framework to revisit in six months. 🏛️ Sessions Worth Your Time 💰 Marketplace Meets AI: The New Route to Partner Revenue Cyril Belikoff, VP Microsoft Azure · Jon Yoo, CEO Suger Cyril Belikoff helped architect the unified Microsoft Marketplace and launched the resale enabled offer, which lets channel partners bundle software development company solutions and transact against Azure commit. Within the 1st week of GA, partners were already processing deals at scale. Cyril joins Vince Menzione and Jon Yoo, CEO of Suger, on Day 1 to cover where the AI-driven marketplace motion is heading and what partners need to do now to capture their share of the revenue flowing through it. Cyril’s advice for the partner still on the sideline is direct: do not try to boil the ocean. Get listed. Create offerings. Figure out 1 or 2 deals, transact them, and see the opportunity. This session gives you the map. 🎯 From Attention to Trust: The New Rules of Hyperscaler Go-To-Market Ashleigh Vogstad, CEO Transcends · Leigh Ann Campbell, Principal REV Alliances We are no longer in an attention economy. You are not competing to be seen. You are competing to be trusted, and the shift has a specific mechanism. AI agents are already making procurement decisions using verified signals: co-sell track records, Partner Center data, marketplace history, certifications. The partners building that record now are building an advantage that compounds quickly and is difficult to replicate later. Leigh Ann Campbell has driven over $200 million in influenced and net-new revenue through the Microsoft partner ecosystem. She knows what happens to a referral the moment it lands in Partner Center and what you need to do to make sure it does not die there. Ashleigh Vogstad, CEO of Transcends, brings the broader GTM lens on how the trust economy is changing what buyers respond to and where most partner marketing misses the mark. 🚀 Partner to Pipeline: Activating your GTM Strategy Reis Barrie, CEO Carve Partners · Greg Goldkamp, Sr. Director Microsoft This is the rare combination of a partner who has built real pipeline through Microsoft’s co-sell motion and a Microsoft leader who can tell you directly what gets field attention and what gets ignored. Most software companies approach co-sell as a relationship exercise. The ones generating real pipeline treat it as a system. They know which solution plays are active in the current fiscal year. They show up in seller conversations before a deal is open. They make it easy for a Microsoft seller to bring them in because the pitch is already mapped to what that seller is measured on. This session covers how to build that system, from first registration in Partner Center through closed pipeline. 🔗 From Connector to Catalyst: Today’s Alliance Manager Erin Figer, Founder CORE Consulting · Christine Bongard, CEO The WIT Network · Steven Karachinsky, CEO ZIRO Erin Figer helped build the co-sell practices at Microsoft, AWS, and Google Cloud when those programs were still being designed. She brings a reframe that changes how the best alliance teams operate: before you can market with a hyperscaler, you have to market to them. Treat Microsoft like a customer. Understand their priorities, their fiscal calendar, their field incentives. Build the internal credibility that gets you pulled into deals instead of chasing them. Joined by Christine Bongard and Steven Karachinsky, this session covers what the transition from connector to catalyst looks like in practice and what separates the alliance managers who generate revenue from those who manage relationships. 💡 Why the practitioner track matters These are not panel discussions with safe answers. This audience asks direct questions, and the speakers in these sessions are prepared to give direct answers. These sessions run across both days alongside 2 full tracks of mainstage content covering marketplace, distribution, AI strategy, and Microsoft’s channel priorities heading into FY27. 📅 UP LIVE Bellevue · May 11–13, 2026 InterContinental Hotel, Bellevue, WA 🌟 Exclusive discount for Microsoft partners Use code ULTIMATEVIP50 at checkout for a special discount reserved for Microsoft partners. 👉 Register for UP LIVE Bellevue Ultimate Partner® is the premier independent platform for technology partnership leaders, uniting the hyperscaler ecosystem to achieve their greatest results through partnering. An official Microsoft GPS recognized community.Firm AI for professional services: governed, agentic workflows built on Microsoft Azure
In this installment of our Partner Spotlight series, we’re highlighting partners building industry-focused AI solutions and bringing them to customers through Microsoft Marketplace. I connected with Richard Baskerville from Intapp to learn how the company is delivering Firm AI—governed, agentic capabilities designed specifically for professional and financial services firms—while aligning with Microsoft Azure for security, scale, and enterprise procurement. Intapp’s approach shows what it looks like to pair deep vertical workflow expertise with a trusted cloud platform so customers can adopt AI in a way that is both practical and accountable. About Richard Baskerville Richard Baskerville is a Senior Director at Intapp, where he helps shape strategic AI alliances across the Microsoft ecosystem and beyond. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [JR] Tell us about Intapp. What inspired the founding of the company, and what problems do your solutions help customers solve? [RB] Intapp was founded on a durable observation: professional firms—law firms, accounting practices, private capital firms, and investment banks—operate differently than general enterprises. Their workflows are shaped by client relationships, professional obligations, and regulatory requirements that generic software was never designed to handle. Our founders saw that these firms were either building bespoke systems at enormous cost or forcing themselves into enterprise tools that didn’t fit. Today, Intapp delivers Firm AI—governed AI purpose-built for professional services. Our solutions span the full firm lifecycle: business development through Intapp DealCloud, time capture and billing through Intapp Time, and risk and compliance management across Intapp Conflicts, Intake, Terms, Walls, and Employee Compliance. Underpinning it all is Intapp Celeste, our agentic AI platform, which puts AI to work on the specific workflows that drive firm performance—while keeping humans accountable and in control. For firms where every engagement carries professional liability, that governance layer isn’t a feature; it’s the foundation. [JR] What industries or types of organizations do you primarily serve today? [RB] Intapp serves professional and financial services firms exclusively. That focus is intentional—and it’s what makes us different. Our customers are law firms, accounting and consulting practices, investment banks and advisory firms, private capital managers, and real assets firms. Many are among the largest in their categories globally. These firms share characteristics that set them apart from general enterprises: partnership structures, billable-hour economics, client conflict management, regulatory oversight, and relationship networks spanning decades. Generic CRM or ERP tools aren’t built for these dynamics. Intapp is. That vertical depth—built over more than 20 years—is what Firm AI means in practice: AI that understands the context of a law firm partner’s client obligations or a dealmaker’s fund-level requirements, not just the general shape of business software. [JR] What were your initial expectations for Microsoft Marketplace when you first started your journey? [RB] Our initial expectation was straightforward: Marketplace would give us a cleaner path to transact with customers already operating inside the Microsoft ecosystem. Many of our customers—large law firms and financial services firms—had already committed significant Azure spend through enterprise agreements. Marketplace offered a way to meet them commercially where they already were. What we underestimated was how much Marketplace would shape the broader partnership. We went in expecting a distribution channel. What we found was a framework that connected co-sell, Azure consumption alignment, and joint go-to-market in ways that changed how our teams engaged. The commercial mechanics—particularly MACC drawdown eligibility—became a real conversation-opener with procurement and finance stakeholders, not just a contract path. [JR] What applications do you have available in Microsoft Marketplace, and how do they help customers? [RB] Intapp has 12 SaaS solutions available in Microsoft Marketplace today, transacted via private offers. They span the full professional services firm lifecycle—from relationship intelligence and deal management with Intapp DealCloud, to time capture with Intapp Time, to risk and compliance management across Intapp Conflicts, Intake, Terms, Walls, and Employee Compliance. Because we focus exclusively on professional and financial services, customers aren’t buying horizontal software adapted for their industry; they’re buying solutions designed for their workflows, compliance obligations, and client structures. Looking ahead, Intapp Celeste—our agentic AI platform—will be available in Marketplace via a consumption-based, metered model. That structure matches how agentic AI gets used: variably, tied to real firm activity, and governed end-to-end. [JR] What were the biggest lessons you learned early on when selling through Marketplace? [RB] Three lessons stood out early: Listing is the beginning, not the end. Initial traction required deliberate investment in co-sell enablement—ensuring Microsoft field teams could position Intapp clearly, not just point to a catalog entry. Specificity wins. Our customers are sophisticated buyers. What worked was leading with vertical relevance—speaking directly to the compliance requirements of a law firm or the relationship-data challenges of a private capital manager. Private offers require commercial fluency. Helping customers understand how Intapp maps to Azure commitments—and helping Microsoft sellers tell that story—made a material difference in deal velocity. [JR] How has your business changed with a transactable offer on the Marketplace? [RB] Transactable offers have changed how deals close. Customers with existing Azure commitments can apply Intapp spend against their MACC, removing a procurement obstacle that previously added months to cycles. Finance and procurement can work within familiar Microsoft frameworks rather than running separate vendor onboarding. Marketplace has also expanded our reach. Microsoft’s field organization has relationships we can’t replicate at scale, and co-sell has helped translate that reach into qualified pipeline—especially in segments where we previously had limited coverage. And the signal matters: being transactable in Marketplace reinforces that Intapp is an enterprise-grade partner, not a niche point solution. [JR] How has collaborating with Microsoft sellers impacted your Marketplace growth? [RB] Microsoft sellers are the activation mechanism for our Marketplace offers. Without field alignment, a listing is a catalog entry. With it, it becomes a joint pipeline motion. We’ve invested in enablement—giving sellers the vertical context to position Intapp credibly in front of legal and financial services CIOs, and making it easy to bring us into deals where Azure capabilities are already in the conversation. That alignment shows up in specific segments. In private capital and investment banking, Microsoft enterprise relationships often predate ours—co-sell provides warm introductions backed by a trusted infrastructure partner. In legal, where Microsoft 365 is near-universal, that adjacency and deep interoperability creates natural entry points. Co-sell turns those adjacencies into active pipeline rather than theoretical opportunity. [JR] What has made the co-sell relationship with Microsoft particularly valuable for Intapp? [RB] Co-sell works because it’s structurally aligned, not just commercially convenient. Microsoft’s investment in these verticals—through industry clouds, compliance frameworks, and dedicated field teams—maps directly onto Intapp’s customer base. We’re selling into the same firms, with the same platform expectations underpinning both offerings. What makes it particularly valuable is the mutual trust transfer. Firms hold Microsoft to a high standard for security, data governance, and regulatory compliance. When Microsoft sellers bring Intapp into the conversation, that credibility extends to us and compresses the trust-building phase of an enterprise cycle—especially in regulated industries. [JR] How does Microsoft Marketplace fit into Intapp’s long-term growth strategy? [RB] Marketplace is central to how we scale Firm AI globally. Our ambition is to be the governed AI platform of record for professional firms across legal, private capital, accounting, and advisory. Helping customers decrement MACC through Marketplace purchases is a clear win-win because it aligns platform investment with workflow outcomes. The upcoming Marketplace availability of Intapp Celeste which will offer different commercial models for customers (e.g. consumption based) marks the next phase. As Celeste deepens integration with Microsoft 365, Teams, and Azure AI services, the commercial and technical stories converge—customers can both buy and operate within an architecture where Firm AI and Microsoft’s platform reinforce each other. [JR] What advice would you give other SDCs who are just starting their Microsoft Marketplace journey? [RB] Three things matter most early on: Earn the co-sell relationship before you need it. Invest in enablement early so Microsoft sellers have enough vertical context to represent your value clearly. Get your commercial model right for the channel. Understand how private offers interact with Azure commitments, and plan for consumption-based pricing where it fits AI usage. Lead with a sharp point of view. The partners who gain traction fastest are the obvious choice for a specific industry workflow or problem—know what that is and communicate it consistently. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Closing reflection Intapp’s Marketplace journey shows that industry-specific, governed AI wins when it’s paired with an enterprise platform customers already trust. By making solutions transactable—especially through private offers that align to customer’s existing Azure commitments—Intapp reduces procurement friction and accelerates adoption. And like many successful partners, their growth ultimately comes down to enablement: clear vertical messaging and tight co-sell alignment that turns Marketplace presence into a real, qualified pipeline.Design observability for AI apps and agents selling through Microsoft Marketplace
In the last post, API resilience and reliability patterns for AI apps and agents, we focused on what happens when AI systems encounter failure—and how resilient execution paths keep that failure contained. Timeouts fire with intent. Retries stay bounded. Circuit breakers provide overload protection. When resilience is designed well, your system continues to function even as conditions change. You can always get curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Observability for AI systems AI apps and agents are shifting traditional observability, which was designed for systems based on simple assumptions, where requests followed linear paths and workloads behaved predictably. Execution in AI systems consumes tokens at a highly variable rate rather than fixed compute units. Requests unfold across multiple reasoning steps. Agents perform work that spans APIs, models, retrieval layers, and applications. A single interaction may pause, branch, retry, or exit early depending on inferred intent, context, and constraints. Instead of asking whether services are running, observability for AI systems asks: what is the system doing right now—and why? Is an agent spending its time reasoning, waiting on dependencies, retrying tool calls, or exiting early due to enforced limits? Is cost increasing because value is increasing, or because execution paths are expanding without progress? AI observability requirements shift the focus in the following subtle, but critical ways: From resource availability to workflow state From performance metrics to signals From incidents to patterns Core observability dimensions for AI apps and agents Once observability shifts toward understanding behavior, clarity comes from tracking state across the agents in the workflow. For AI apps and agents, observable indicators, such as those detailed below, show how work unfolds and changes during real usage—especially in trials and early adoption: Execution flow shows how a request moves through agents, tools, and workflows. This highlights where execution progresses smoothly, where it slows, and where it concludes early. This makes agent outcomes explainable and keeps behavior consistent across tenants. Cost and token behavior reveals how execution translates into consumption. Token usage per request, per agent step, and per retry shows where value is being delivered and where execution paths expand without proportional benefit. This insight connects runtime behavior directly to Marketplace billing expectations and evaluations. Latency and wait states distinguish active processing from time spent waiting on dependencies. Seeing where time is consumed helps explain slow experiences and guides decisions about optimization, caching, or resilience improvements. Failure classification provides structure when systems degrade. Separating tool failures from planning failures, and transient issues from terminal exits, keeps investigations focused and prevents protective behavior from being misread as instability. Tenant‑level patterns surface how behavior repeats at scale. Uneven load, and recurring degradation often appear first during trials and shape the customer's perception. Together, these dimensions turn telemetry into understanding—supporting clearer conversations, faster triage, and predictable execution as usage grows. Why observability matters By this point in the journey, your AI app or agent has implemented bounded execution paths, cost controls, and quality of service safeguards. As a result, failure degrades gracefully instead of spreading. These resilience techniques determine how your solution behaves under pressure. The data gathered from observability platforms like Application Insights and Azure Monitor explains why it behaves that way. For AI and agentic systems, infrastructure health alone rarely answers the questions that matter. Services can be up, CPUs can be idle, and queues can look healthy while agents loop inefficiently, retries quietly expand cost, or workflows exit early without delivering value. From the customer’s perspective, the experience feels inconsistent even though the platform appears stable. Observability closes this gap by revealing system behavior rather than system status. It shows how requests move, where work concentrates, and how constraints shape outcomes. At Marketplace scale, these patterns repeat across tenants and trials. What appears once during an evaluation often appears again as adoption grows. Observability connects runtime behavior back to the design choices introduced in earlier posts: Usage‑based billing introduced variability in consumption Performance optimization introduced tradeoffs among latency, quality, and cost Resilience patterns introduced controlled failure and bounded execution Observability allows you to explain outcomes during trials, validate assumptions as usage grows, and operate with confidence across customers and environments. Without this visibility, teams react to symptoms. With it, they recognize patterns. From execution paths to behavioral signals Observability begins at the same place resilience begins—API boundaries. These boundaries define where responsibility shifts and where behavior becomes visible. Observability focuses on signals that explain decisions made by the system as it executes instead of relying on raw logs that describe isolated events. Every resilience mechanism emits behavioral signals. Viewed together, these signals provide far more value than logs alone. Logs answer whether something happened. Behavioral signals explain why it happened and how the system responded. Circuit breakers change state as load builds and recedes. Retry loops show whether failures resolve quickly or exhaust their limits. Timeout enforcement reveals where dependencies slow execution. Fallback paths and early terminations show how the system protects itself while preserving outcomes for customers. This perspective matters most for agents. Agent execution unfolds as a series of choices—plan, call a tool, retry, exit early—rather than a single request‑response cycle. Observability that tracks these decisions makes agent behavior understandable, consistent, and defensible as usage grows across customer tenants. Observability at the agent layer As AI systems become more agent‑driven, observability needs to move closer to where decisions are made. Agents introduce variability by design. They plan, adapt, and choose workflow paths dynamically. Without first‑class visibility into that behavior, execution can appear unpredictable even when the underlying system is healthy. Observability at the agent layer acts as the feedback loop that keeps execution safely bounded. It shows how agents use the freedom you give them—and where that freedom begins to stretch into inefficiency. Observability follows how the agent did its job instead of treating the agent’s interaction as a single outcome. Several indicators help make agent behavior understandable. Step count per request reveals how much reasoning effort a prompt requires. Planning iterations show whether an agent converges quickly or cycles through alternatives. Tool invocation frequency highlights when agents rely heavily on external systems. Early exits compared to full completion explain whether limits and fallbacks activate as designed. Taken together, these indicators help distinguish healthy exploration from inefficient reasoning and degraded execution. An agent exploring briefly before converging adds value. An agent looping through tools without progress signals pressure, uncertainty, or dependency issues. This distinction reinforces a core principle of agentic systems: models reason probabilistically, adapting to context as it changes. Your system observes deterministically—measuring execution, enforcing boundaries, and clarifying outcomes. When those roles stay separate and well‑instrumented, agent behavior becomes transparent, predictable, and ready for Marketplace scale. Observability across environments The type of Marketplace offer you choose shapes what observability customers expect and how responsibility is shared. For SaaS offers, publishers typically own end‑to‑end execution. Observability centers on agent behavior, workflow completion, token usage, latency, and dependency impact across tenants. Publishers rely on consistent signals—often surfaced through tools like Azure Monitor, Application Insights, and Microsoft AI Foundry—to explain how requests behave as scale and load increase. For container‑based offers and Azure Managed Applications, observability expectations are more distributed. Publishers expose clear execution outcomes, limits, and failure signals at application boundaries. Customers, in turn, observe infrastructure health, scaling behavior, and downstream systems within their own environments. This separation ensures each party has visibility into what they control without creating ambiguity. Learn more about Choosing your marketplace offer type for AI Apps and agents. Execution behavior differs across environments for predictable reasons. Scale increases, tenant mix broadens, and external dependencies behave differently under real load. What must stay consistent is how behavior is interpreted. Signal definitions, thresholds, and failure classification should mean the same thing in Dev, Stage, and Prod. Learn more about designing a reliable environment strategy for Microsoft Marketplace AI apps and agents. Staging environments are where this consistency is validated. Observing retries, timeouts, and graceful degradation before production prepares you for Marketplace evaluations, which often resemble production conditions. Observability gaps tend to appear first during customer evaluation—when clarity matters most. Publisher and customer visibility boundaries Purpose: Parallel Post #13 responsibility clarity, now for observability As observability matures across environments, clarity around responsibility becomes essential. For Marketplace solutions, trust grows when publishers and customers each see what they own—and understand where that visibility ends. Publishers are responsible for instrumenting execution paths end to end. That means making workflows traceable, limits visible, and failure modes explainable. Observability should surface behavior—how requests progressed, where execution concluded, and why—rather than exposing raw internal errors that require insider knowledge to interpret. Customers focus their observability on what they control. This includes monitoring downstream systems, infrastructure behavior, and environment‑level alerts within their own estate. When visibility aligns with ownership, teams can act quickly and decisively. Exposing too much internal detail can overwhelm customers and blur accountability. Observing too little behavior creates friction, especially when issues cross boundaries and lack context. Clear visibility enables faster triage, sharper ownership boundaries, and fewer escalations rooted in ambiguity. Observability as an enabler for scale, billing, and trust From a customer’s perspective, observability answers two fundamental questions: Can I understand what happened? and Can I trust this at scale? When the answer to both is clear, observability becomes part of the value your Marketplace offering delivers. When system behavior is visible and explainable, customers gain confidence that adoption and growth will remain predictable. Observability directly supports usage‑based billing by tying execution behavior to measured consumption. Clear visibility into token usage, retries, and execution paths helps validate how usage is calculated and supports transparent billing conversations. It also enables ongoing performance tuning and caching strategies by showing where latency accumulates, where work repeats, and where optimization delivers measurable impact. Observability reinforces confidence in resilience mechanisms, confirming that limits, fallbacks, and degradation paths activate as designed under real‑world conditions. Beyond validation, observability creates a continuous feedback loop. Execution data informs pricing adjustments, guides changes to limits, and helps refine default configurations as customer behavior evolves. What’s next in the journey With execution behavior observable and explainable, the focus shifts to how AI systems are operated safely as change accelerates. The upcoming posts will discuss deployment strategies, CI/CD pipelines for agents, and progressive rollouts build on this foundation—ensuring AI apps evolve confidently as usage and expectations grow. Key Resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessAPI resilience and reliability patterns for AI apps and agents selling through Microsoft Marketplace
Why API resilience is a Marketplace readiness requirement The previous post Design Predictable AI Performance for Apps Selling Through Microsoft Marketplace showed how to design systems that behave predictably when things go right. This post focuses on what happens when they do not. Imagine an enterprise customer launching a trial of your AI agent from Microsoft Marketplace. The first few interactions work beautifully. Then a more complex request triggers a multi‑step agent workflow: retrieval, enrichment, validation, approval. One downstream API stalls for just long enough to push the workflow beyond its timeout. The agent retries. The retry fans out into additional calls. Tokens burn. Costs rise. Eventually the entire interaction fails ambiguously. From the customer’s perspective, the trial just “didn’t work” with no explanation or architecture diagram. Just a stalled agent and decreased confidence. AI apps and agents treat APIs as their execution backbone. Every model invocation, tool call, retrieval query, and workflow step depends on APIs behaving within expected bounds. Solutions with a single unstable dependency can affect many tenants simultaneously. You can always get curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. How AI and agentic workloads stress APIs differently Traditional API platforms often assume linear, predictable request patterns. One request in, one response out. AI apps produce bursty, non‑linear traffic shaped by user behavior, token budgets, and inference variability. Agents amplify this further. A single user request may trigger planning, branching logic, parallel tool calls, and dynamic retries—all before returning a result. Single‑turn inference calls tend to be synchronous and bounded. Agent workflows may run for minutes, traverse multiple services, and consume tokens unpredictably depending on intermediate outcomes. Happy‑path assumptions break down quickly. Reliability also compounds mathematically. If you chain five APIs, each with 99.9% availability, the composite reliability drops to roughly 99.5%. Add retries without bounds, and the system can degrade traffic rather than absorb failure. For AI systems, reliability must be defined across multiple dimensions: Availability: Are dependencies reachable? Timeout behavior: How long will the system wait? Error propagation: What information crosses boundaries? Recovery safety: Can operations be retried without harm? Data access and integrity: Is contextual data available, relevant, and trustworthy? Defining reliability for AI systems Reliability becomes the mechanism that preserves trust when uncertainty appears. Reliability in AI systems is more than “the model didn’t fail.” That framing is incomplete. True reliability means providing predictable behavior under partial failure, bounding execution when dependencies degrade, and failing clearly, safely, and consistently instead of unpredictably. For publishers providing AI solutions on Marketplace, this includes protecting customers from ambiguous states—workflows that half‑complete, retries that silently multiply costs, or agents that continue planning after their assumptions are no longer valid. Designing resilient API boundaries The shift toward reliable AI systems starts with how you think about API boundaries. In this context, an API boundary is the line where responsibility changes—between your app and a dependency, between orchestration and execution, or between your system and a customer‑ or partner‑owned service. These boundaries are deliberate points of control. You must decide: how long is a call allowed to run? What happens if it fails? Is a retry safe, and if so, how many times? When agents assume that APIs will be reliable, fast, or always available, failure starts becoming systemic. Well‑designed API boundaries stop execution early when reliability assumptions break. Explicit timeouts keep your system from waiting indefinitely when a dependency slows or an API call hangs. Bounded retries allow brief recovery without inflating cost, load, or complexity. Together, these constraints help your system behave predictably, even under stress. This is where your enforcement layers come into focus. For many Marketplace solutions, Azure API Management is where you turn design intent into predictable behavior. At this boundary, you define how your system responds under pressure—how much traffic is allowed, how tokens are budgeted, and how long requests are permitted to run. These policies give you a steady way to shape execution across tenants, even when the systems behind the boundary behave unpredictably. As workflows grow more complex, orchestration layers such as Azure Durable Functions or Logic Apps carry that intent forward. They give you a way to manage long‑running or multi‑step operations explicitly, with clear execution limits, defined retry behavior, and compensating actions when steps fail so you can keep control over how work progresses and how it concludes. Core API resilience patterns for AI apps and agents Several foundational patterns appear repeatedly in resilient AI solutions published on Marketplace. Timeouts and deadline propagation ensure no call waits indefinitely. For AI workloads, these limits should be token‑aware—longer prompts or higher‑cost models require proportional constraints. Deadlines should propagate across calls so upstream services remain informed. Bounded retries protect against transient failures but with pre-defined limits and quotas. In agent workflows, retries should be explicit, counted, and observable. Retrying API calls that execute actions, attempt and fail authentications, or create updates that exceed quotas can lead to runaway failures. Circuit breakers prevent cascading failure by opening when error rates exceed thresholds. Unlike guardrails—which enforce policy by intent—circuit breakers react to system state by pausing execution paths that are no longer reliable. Azure API Management and resilience libraries such as Polly in .NET provide practical implementations. Bulkheads isolate high‑risk or high‑cost operations. Separate concurrency pools, queues, or compute tiers prevent one tenant or workflow from consuming disproportionate resources. This is especially critical for expensive reasoning paths or third‑party dependencies. Idempotency keeps retries safe by ensuring that repeating the same request produces the same result. Agents that take real‑world actions—creating records, approving workflows, triggering payments—must attach idempotency keys so repeat attempts do not multiply side effects. Together, these patterns do not eliminate failure. They contain it. Agent‑specific reliability risks and mitigations Agent autonomy shifts how reliability behaves in practice. Agents change the shape of failure. Because they plan, reason, and act across multiple steps, a single issue rarely stays isolated. When autonomy increases, failures affect more of the workflow and do so faster. Most agent failures fall into two categories and treating them the same way creates instability. Tool failures occur when an external dependency slows, times out, or becomes unavailable. An API may reject a request, enforce a quota, or fail temporarily. These failures require containment. Your system should pause execution, apply fallback behavior, or exit cleanly once limits are reached. Allowing the agent to keep calling tools under these conditions increases cost and load without improving results. Planning failures occur when the agent’s reasoning breaks down. The plan itself is flawed, incomplete, or loops without converging on an outcome. These failures require correction. Step limits, loop detection, and execution caps keep planning from expanding indefinitely and signal when the system should stop and reassess. Making this distinction explicit is what keeps agent behavior predictable. You define how far execution can go—how many steps are allowed, how long a request may run end‑to‑end, and when the system should pause or conclude. By enforcing these limits outside the model, you give agents room to reason while your system provides the structure that contains failure and keeps execution steady as conditions change. As explored in Designing AI Guardrails for Apps and Agents in Microsoft Marketplace, guardrails define what an agent is allowed to do. Resilience patterns determine how your system holds up when dependencies degrade. Together, they enable agents that feel capable and autonomous while remaining stable, bounded, and ready for Marketplace scale. Reliability across external and third‑party APIs Marketplace AI apps rarely operate in isolation. They depend on customer‑owned systems, partner services, SaaS platforms, and external LLM APIs—each with different SLAs and failure modes. Publishers must absorb this variability rather than pass it directly to customers. That means handling throttling gracefully, surfacing authentication failures clearly, and isolating quota exhaustion. Token‑based rate limiting via Azure API Management is especially important for downstream LLM calls, where cost and availability intersect. Remember the SLA math: your effective reliability is the product of every dependency. Designing for the weakest link protects customer perception—and your own margins. Environment‑aware reliability validation As outlined in Designing a reliable environment strategy for Microsoft Marketplace, environment strategy underpins reliable promotion and confident scaling. Reliability cannot be tested only in production. Before Marketplace submission, failure behavior should be validated in staging. Timeouts should trigger as expected. Retries should stop when designed to stop. Circuit breakers should open—and close—predictably. Equally important is environment consistency. Dev, Stage, and Prod environments should enforce the same resilience policies, even if scale differs. Otherwise, failures will appear only when customers are watching. Azure Chaos Studio provides controlled fault injection to test these scenarios intentionally. The goal is to confirm that systems behave consistently under stress. Reliability, ownership, and Marketplace readiness As a publisher, you are responsible for resilient defaults, protection against cascading failures, predictable failure modes, and documented service expectations. Customers, in turn, remain responsible for the reliability of their downstream systems, environment‑level scaling, and internal monitoring. When this boundary is explicit, teams know where responsibility sits and how to respond when conditions change. When ownership is unclear, support escalations increase, accountability blurs, and confidence drops on both sides. Marketplace customers expect clarity about what your solution controls, what it depends on, and how issues are handled when they arise. That clarity directly shapes Marketplace readiness. Reliable execution paths influence certification reviews, determine whether enterprise pilots progress, and establish long‑term operational confidence. During trials, predictable behavior feels professional. It reduces surprise costs, shortens evaluation cycles, and makes adoption decisions easier. In this way, reliability acts as a trust signal and a sales enabler. When customers see that ownership is well-defined and failure is handled intentionally, AI adoption through Marketplace feels safe, bounded, and ready to scale. What’s next in the journey Once execution paths are resilient, your solution’s behavior becomes visible. Circuit breaker transitions, retry frequency, timeout events, and error propagation turn into operational signals that show how your AI app or agent behaves under real load and across customer tenants. This foundation enables the next layer of operational maturity—observability, safe deployment practices, CI/CD for agents, and ongoing evaluation—so you can understand behavior end‑to‑end and operate confidently as usage grows. Reliability makes AI adoption safe; observability makes it sustainable. Key Resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessDesign predictable AI performance to scale selling through Microsoft Marketplace
Trade-offs in AI performance: latency, quality and cost Imagine a software company launches a customer trial for its new AI assistant through Microsoft Marketplace. The trial begins smoothly — until more complex queries take longer than a few seconds to return a response. The cause isn’t model failure. It’s an unbounded Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline retrieving 50 documents per query before synthesizing an answer. Latency increases. Runtime token usage expands. Trial‑stage infrastructure cost rises immediately. This exposes the core runtime tradeoff in enterprise AI systems: Latency ↔ Quality ↔ Cost Improving response quality often increases retrieval depth. Increasing retrieval depth expands token usage. Expanded token usage drives both cost and latency upward. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. You can always get curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. How traditional cost model assumptions break down for AI In classic software models, you expect predictable runtime costs such as license allocations, storage, compute time, bandwidth consumption, etc. But in AI-powered systems, that stability gives way to new complexities driven by token-based cost structures. These costs scale in unexpected ways, depending on the length of generated outputs, the depth of information retrieval, the number of reasoning steps an agent performs, and how often external tools are invoked. Consider the RAG pipeline scenario: retrieving five documents for a single query might create a 3,000-token prompt. If the pipeline instead pulls 50 documents, that prompt balloons to 15,000 tokens—before the AI even begins to infer an answer. And the unpredictability doesn’t stop there. Agent orchestration can introduce even more variability. Planning steps may stretch or shrink depending on the query, tool-calling systems might retry failed executions multiple times, and multi-branch workflows can run in parallel, all amplifying token consumption and cost. Keep costs bounded without sacrificing quality While unpredictable token usage and orchestration steps can quickly escalate infrastructure costs in AI-powered systems, design choices can prevent runaway expenses without compromising the quality of responses. To achieve this, engineers must balance procurement expectations set by pricing with real-time operational controls. For instance, use a multi-model tiered routing strategy to allow less complex queries to be handled by lightweight models, reserving advanced reasoning models for more demanding tasks. Combining this with token budgeting strategies—such as per-session caps and API Management token-limit policies—ensures that each interaction remains within defined boundaries. Cost-aware orchestration paths become essential when running AI workloads across multiple tenants, especially when retries and multi-branch workflows threaten to multiply inference consumption. By calibrating runtime guardrails to performance and cost signals, AI systems can be designed to fail gracefully and predictably, preventing ambiguous and expensive failures. Ultimately, the goal is to deliver high-quality results at scale, maintaining control over both costs and performance as usage grows. Achieving predictable latency: Business best practices across each layer For enterprise AI systems, ensuring fast and consistent response times—while balancing quality and cost—is a top priority. Predictable latency requires intentional design at every layer of your architecture. Interaction Layer: Set clear boundaries for incoming requests using Azure API Management rate‑limit and quota policies, such as rate-limit-by-key, scoped per subscription or tenant. These controls cap request throughput and request volume over time, preventing traffic spikes from overwhelming downstream AI services and ensuring consistent, predictable response behavior across tenants. Orchestration Layer: Define and restrict system execution paths. Limit reasoning depth in workflows so complex operations don’t unexpectedly slow things down. This keeps your business processes running smoothly and predictably. At the API boundary, Azure API Management can enforce deterministic routing, retry limits, and timeout policies, while backend orchestration services such as Azure Durable Functions or Logic Apps manage multi‑step workflows with explicit bounds on execution depth and retries. Model Layer: Choose models based on expected concurrency needs. Use fallback routing to redirect traffic during busy periods—so users don’t experience delays. Rely on Azure OpenAI Provisioned Throughput Units (PTUs) for steady baseline performance and enable PAYG overflow to handle temporary surges without sacrificing speed. Microsoft AI Foundry can be used to centrally manage model selection and routing policies, enabling consistent fallback strategies and governed use of multiple models across agents and workloads. Retrieval Layer: Optimize your document indexing and narrow the scope of data being searched. This means users get relevant information faster, and your system avoids unnecessary slowdowns. Services such as Azure AI Search enable scoped, indexed retrieval over structured and unstructured content, while integrating with Azure Blob Storage or Azure Cosmos DB as source data stores to support predictable, low‑latency access for RAG‑based AI workflows. Data Layer: Keep your compute and storage resources close together and aligned regionally. By minimizing cross-region data transfers, you reduce latency and boost reliability—critical for enterprise-grade AI. Across every layer, publishers are responsible for designing bounded, predictable defaults, while customers govern configuration, scale, and operational posture—a clear separation that reduces friction, improves trial outcomes, and accelerates Marketplace adoption. By applying these best practices decisively at every layer, software development companies can move beyond isolated optimizations and design AI solutions that behave predictably under real customer load. This approach enables customers to run meaningful trials, validate performance and cost assumptions early, and scale with confidence as demand grows. More importantly, it establishes a repeatable engineering foundation—one that supports faster iteration, clearer operational ownership, and successful commercialization through Microsoft Marketplace. Design caching into your architecture from the start Predictable AI performance relies on caching that’s intentionally designed into the architecture—not added after systems are already under load. In agent‑driven and retrieval‑augmented workflows, caching is foundational to controlling latency, stabilizing runtime costs, and keeping execution behavior consistent as usage scales. Effective designs cache work wherever outcomes are deterministic. Request‑level and semantic caching reduce redundant inference when users submit identical or meaning‑equivalent queries, while Azure API Management paired with Azure Managed Redis enables governed reuse at the intent level. Retrieval pipelines benefit from embedding and retrieval caching, which avoids repeated vectorization and unnecessary search overhead. Within orchestration flows, tool‑level caching ensures stable responses for deterministic calls such as policy checks or configuration lookups, and agent plan caching allows reasoning paths to be reused without re‑incurring planning cost. Caching must be paired with clear invalidation strategies—time‑based expiration, context‑aware refresh, and event‑driven updates—to preserve correctness and trust. In Marketplace deployments, multi‑tenant cache isolation and observability are essential. When caching is visible, governed, and intentional, it becomes a powerful enabler of predictable scale. What’s next in the journey With performance and cost under control, the next question is how your system behaves when something goes wrong. The next post explores API resilience and reliability patterns—because predictable performance only matters if your AI system continues to function through the inevitable failures that occur at Marketplace scale. Key Resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessDesign predictable usage-based billing for AI apps and agents selling in Microsoft Marketplace
Design predictable usage‑based billing for AI apps and agents selling on Microsoft Marketplace Compared to traditional software, pricing and billing feel harder because of the range of AI functionality. They reason, they infer, call tools, process data, all, to complete tasks on the customer’s behalf. If you’re building an AI app or agent to sell in Microsoft Marketplace, usage‑based billing needs to be designed with care, instrumented with intention, and explained in a way customers can trust. This post, along with App Advisor’s curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace, walks through how to do exactly that—without over‑engineering or surprising your customers later. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Why billing for AI systems is different Traditional software pricing is usually tied to static entitlements, such as licenses, seats, fixed feature sets and/or a predictable runtime footprint. AI apps and agents don’t work that way. Their cost and value are driven by runtime behavior, such as: How often a model is invoked How many tokens are processed per request How deep reasoning chains go How frequently tools or APIs are called How much data is accessed, transformed, or embedded AI behaviors are subject to change based on the interpretation of prompts and subsequent outputs processed by agents and models. That variability is why pricing AI like traditional software often creates friction—margins erode and customers may lose trust. Pricing decisions should start with business value in mind, not the meter level. Start with plan design before you define meters Plans explain pricing. Meters enforce pricing. Your Marketplace plan is where customers learn what they are buying and how it works. Before you design a single metered dimension, your plan should clearly answer: What AI behaviors are allowed What usage is included What usage becomes billable What limits apply How customers upgrade as they grow An effective plan design typically considers several key factors, such as the distinction between public and private plans, the allocation of included usage versus charges for overages, the balance of base fees against variable consumption, and the provision of clear upgrade paths across different tiers. For instance, if you’re creating an AI support agent, a well-structured plan might offer up to 1,000 resolved conversations each month for a set monthly fee, with additional charges for any conversations beyond that limit and a higher tier that grants access to increased usage allowances. When customers can easily understand what is included, what triggers extra costs, and how they can upgrade as their needs grow, metering feels straightforward and fair. Conversely, when plan details are ambiguous, even accurately measured charges can seem arbitrary, leading to uncomfortable billing discussions. Choose a billing model that matches how your AI behaves When structuring your AI solution’s pricing, begin by evaluating the expected usage patterns and the business value your AI delivers. Actively consider the nature of your agent’s workloads, the variability of customer interactions, and the predictability of operating costs. Flat Fee: Weigh the benefits of flat rate or subscription pricing. Opt for fixed monthly or annual fees when your AI solution operates within defined limits and usage remains consistent. This approach simplifies billing for customers and provides them with clear expectations. Subscription pricing works best for AI agents whose engagement is steady and whose costs don’t fluctuate dramatically. Usage-based (metered): If your AI’s usage varies widely or scales rapidly, usage-based (metered) pricing is often preferable. This model aligns charges with actual consumption, ensuring customers pay only for what they use. To implement it, leverage Marketplace metering APIs to track and bill usage accurately. Consider usage-based pricing when customer demand is unpredictable or your AI’s operational costs increase with higher workloads. Hybrid: For AI solutions that deliver ongoing baseline value but occasionally handle intensive tasks, hybrid models combine the strengths of both approaches. Offer a base subscription for predictable service, then layer in usage charges for overages. This structure is common for agents serving regular needs with intermittent spikes, enabling you to manage cost recovery while giving customers cost certainty. Metering looks different depending on your offer type As you move forward with your plan design and billing model, it’s important to recognize that metering varies significantly based on how your solution is delivered. SaaS offers: Usage tracking is accomplished through Marketplace Metering APIs, allowing you to capture AI-driven activities such as agent task executions, workflow runs, document analysis, or token processing. Your metering should align closely with the customer’s subscription lifecycle, plan tiers, and the included usage, ensuring transparency and consistency as customers progress through different service levels. Container-based offers: You might meter resources like nodes, cores, pods, or clusters—or even application-specific AI dimensions. Accurate attribution across tenants and deployments is crucial, so customers are billed reliably according to their actual consumption. Virtual machine offers: Metering is generally linked to VM runtime or license usage. Although the granularity is often lower than SaaS solutions, billing remains contractually enforced, and publishers must ensure that measurements are dependable and align with customer agreements. Azure Managed Applications: Metering should reflect solution management exclusively, while the underlying infrastructure costs are handled separately through Azure’s billing system. For more about offer types, visit Marketplace Offer Types for AI Apps and agents: SaaS vs Managed App vs Containers. Design metered dimensions customers can actually explain As you refine your billing model for Marketplace offers, it’s vital to consider how your metered dimensions will be perceived and understood by your customers. The most effective dimensions reflect clear, customer-visible value rather than abstract internal system mechanics. For AI-driven solutions, this often means tracking tangible outcomes such as agent tasks executed, successful workflows completed, data objects processed, or AI-assisted actions performed. Choosing these straightforward metrics not only makes invoices easier for customers to interpret but also strengthens your position during billing reviews by tying charges directly to business outcomes. For example, “documents analyzed” is a much clearer and more defensible metric than “token batches processed,” and “resolved workflows” resonates more with customers than “model invocations.” Ultimately, a strong metered dimension is one that a customer can easily explain to their finance or procurement teams. If the charge isn’t readily understandable, it’s a signal to revisit and refine your measurement approach. Track and plan metrics using the Microsoft Marketplace metering service APIs Under‑reporting impacts revenue. Marketplace enforces billing based on what you report. Once you've determined how your solution will be delivered and understood how metering varies by offer type, the next step is to ensure your billing model is both transparent and robust. This is accomplished by tracking your plan and meter metrics through the Microsoft Marketplace Metering Service APIs —a process that not only supports accurate billing but also builds customer trust. Instrumenting usage at runtime is essential: you must reliably capture and report consumption, making sure each event is precisely recorded and associated with the correct subscription and plan. Aggregating this usage and sending it to the marketplace—whether hourly or daily, covering the previous 24 hours—ensures billing remains consistent and defensible. Add metering guardrails to avoid cost surprises As you implement usage-based metering for your Marketplace offers, it’s essential to build guardrails that protect both your business and your customers from unexpected costs. Metering is a critical component of your service reliability, directly influencing customer trust and the overall transparency of your billing model. Ensuring your metering remains both dependable and customer-focused is crucial for maintaining trust and transparency. As you instrument your solution, take care to attribute usage precisely across multiple tenants, so every charge is accurately mapped to the correct customer and subscription. Additionally, aggregating usage on a consistent schedule—such as hourly or daily—not only supports predictable reporting but also helps customers better understand their consumption patterns. These practices lay a solid foundation for metering that supports both your business objectives and your customers’ needs, creating a seamless experience that aligns with the overall goals of your Marketplace offering. Marketplace-ready offerings typically feature: Usage caps that set clear maximums, limiting exposure to unforeseen charges. Soft limits with proactive alerts as customers approach their thresholds. Hard limits to enforce plan boundaries and prevent overages beyond agreed levels. Transparent usage dashboards, giving customers real-time visibility into their consumption. For example, when a customer reaches 80% of their allotted usage, they receive an alert and can decide whether to upgrade their plan, pause usage, or proceed into overage with full awareness—eliminating surprise invoices at month’s end. What’s Next in the Journey After establishing robust billing and metering, the next step is to enhance your AI solution’s performance, optimize API workloads, and improve production observability—laying the groundwork for scalable, efficient, and reliable operations. These capabilities help keep AI systems cost‑effective and reliable as usage grows. Key Resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV SuccessIntegrate Marketplace commerce signals to enforce entitlements in AI apps
How fulfillment and entitlement models differ by Microsoft Marketplace offer type AI apps and agents increasingly operate with runtime autonomy, dynamic capability exposure, and on‑demand access to tools and resources. That flexibility creates a new challenge for software companies: enforcing commercial entitlements (what a customer is allowed to access or use at runtime) correctly after a customer purchase through Microsoft Marketplace. Marketplace is the system of record for commercial truth, but enforcement always lives in your application, agent, or deployed resources. This post explains how Marketplace fulfillment and entitlement models differ by offer type—and what that means when you’re designing AI apps and agents that must respond correctly to subscription state, plan changes, and cancellations. You can always get a curated step-by-step guidance through building, publishing and selling apps for Marketplace through App Advisor. This post is part of a series on building and publishing well-architected AI apps and agents in Microsoft Marketplace. The series focuses on AI apps and agents that are architected, hosted, and operated on Azure, with guidance aligned to building and selling solutions through Microsoft Marketplace. Why AI apps and agents must integrate with Marketplace commerce signals Microsoft Marketplace is the commercial system of record for: Tracking purchase and subscription state Managing plan selection and plan changes Signaling cancellation and suspension AI apps and agents, by contrast, operate in environments where decisions are made continuously at runtime. They expose capabilities dynamically, invoke tools conditionally, and often operate without a human in the loop. That mismatch makes static enforcement insufficient, including: UI‑only checks Configuration‑time gating Prompt‑based constraints Marketplace communicates commercial truth, but it does not enforce value. That responsibility always belongs to the publisher’s application, agent, or deployed resources. Correct integration starts with understanding what Marketplace provides—and what your software must implement. What Marketplace provides—and what publishers must implement Before diving into APIs or offer types, it’s important to separate responsibilities clearly. Marketplace provides authoritative commercial signals, including: Subscription existence and current state Plan and entitlement context Licensing or usage boundaries associated with the offer Marketplace does not: Enforce your business logic Control runtime behavior Automatically limit feature or resource access Publishers are responsible for translating Marketplace signals into: Application behavior Agent capabilities Resource access boundaries That enforcement must be deterministic, auditable, and aligned with what the customer actually purchased. How those signals surface—through APIs, deployment constructs, licensing context, or metering—depends entirely on the fulfillment and entitlement model of the offer. How fulfillment and entitlement models differ by offer type Microsoft Marketplace supports multiple offer and fulfillment models, including: SaaS subscriptions Azure Managed Applications Container offers Virtual machine offers Other specialized Marketplace offer types Each model determines: How a customer receives value Where commercial signals appear Which integration mechanisms apply Where entitlement enforcement must occur Some offers rely on Marketplace APIs. Others rely on deployment‑time enforcement, resource scoping, or usage constraints. There is no single integration pattern that applies to every offer. Understanding this distinction is essential before designing entitlement enforcement for AI apps and agents. Marketplace integration responsibilities by offer type This section is the technical anchor of the post. Marketplace APIs are not universal; they apply differently depending on the offer model. SaaS offers SaaS offers integrate directly with Microsoft Marketplace through the SaaS Fulfillment APIs. These APIs are used to: Activate subscriptions Track plan changes Enforce suspension and cancellation In this model, Marketplace communicates subscription lifecycle events, but it does not enforce access. The publisher must: Map Marketplace subscriptions to internal tenants Maintain a durable subscription record Enforce entitlements at runtime For AI apps and agents, that enforcement typically happens in orchestration logic or tool‑invocation boundaries—not in the UI or prompts. SaaS Fulfillment APIs are the primary mechanism for receiving commercial truth, but the application remains responsible for acting on it. Container offers Container offers deliver value as container images and associated artifacts, such as Helm charts. In this model, the publisher is shipping a deployable artifact—not an application endpoint or API managed by Marketplace. Marketplace provides: Entitlement to deploy the container image Optional usage‑based billing and metering Ability to deploy to an existing AKS cluster or to a publisher configure one Enforcement occurs at: Deployment time, by controlling access to images Runtime usage, through configuration and limits Metered dimensions, when usage‑based billing applies For AI workloads packaged as containers, entitlement enforcement is typically embedded in the runtime configuration, resource limits, or metering logic—not in Marketplace APIs. Virtual machine offers Virtual machine offers are fulfilled through VM image deployment. In this model: Fulfillment is based on VM deployment Licensing and usage are enforced through the VM lifecycle Subscription state is less event‑driven but still contractually binding While there is no SaaS‑style fulfillment callback, publishers must still ensure that deployed workloads align with the purchased offer. For AI solutions delivered via VM images, enforcement is tied to licensing, configuration, and operational controls inside the VM. Azure Managed Applications For Azure Managed Applications, fulfillment is enforced through the Azure Resource Manager (ARM) deployment lifecycle. In this model: A Marketplace purchase establishes deployment rights Resources are deployed into a managed resource group Operational boundaries are defined by ARM and Azure role assignments Publishers enforce value through: Deployment behavior Resource configuration Lifecycle management and updates For AI solutions delivered as managed applications, entitlement enforcement is tied to what is deployed and how it is operated—not to an external subscription API. Marketplace establishes the contract, and Azure enforces access through infrastructure boundaries. Other offer types Other Marketplace offer types follow similar patterns, with varying degrees of API involvement and deployment‑time enforcement. The key principle holds: Marketplace establishes commercial rights, but enforcement is always implemented by the publisher, using the mechanisms appropriate to the offer model. Designing entitlement enforcement into AI apps and agents Entitlements must be enforced outside the model. Large language models should never be responsible for deciding what a customer is allowed to do. Effective enforcement belongs in: The interaction layer The orchestration layer Tool invocation boundaries Avoid: UI‑only enforcement Prompt‑based entitlement logic Soft limits without auditability AI agents should request capabilities from deterministic services that already understand subscription state and plan entitlements. This ensures enforcement is consistent, testable, and resilient. Handling plan changes, upgrades, and feature tiers Plan changes are common in Microsoft Marketplace. AI capability must align continuously with: The active subscription tier Purchased dimensions or limits Common examples include: Agent autonomy limits Tool or connector access Rate limits Data scope Feature gating must be deterministic and testable. When a plan changes, your application or agent should respond predictably—without manual intervention or redeployment. Failure, retry, and reconciliation patterns Marketplace events are not guaranteed to be: Ordered Delivered once Immediately available AI apps must handle: Duplicate events Missed callbacks Temporary Marketplace or network failures Reconciliation processes protect customers, publishers, and Marketplace trust. Periodic verification of subscription state ensures that runtime enforcement remains aligned with commercial reality. How Marketplace API integration affects readiness and review Marketplace reviewers look for: Clear enforcement of subscription state Clean suspension and revocation paths Strong integration leads to: Faster certification Fewer conditional approvals Lower support burden after launch Correct enforcement is not just a technical requirement—it’s a Marketplace readiness signal. What’s next in the journey Once entitlement enforcement is solid, the next layer of operational maturity includes: Usage‑based billing and metering architecture Performance, caching, and cost optimization Observability and operational health for AI apps and agents Key resources See curated, step-by-step guidance to help you build, publish, or sell your app or agent (no matter where you start) in App Advisor Quick-Start Development Toolkit can connect you with code templates for AI solution patterns Microsoft AI Envisioning Day Events How to build and publish AI apps and agents for Microsoft Marketplace Get over $126K USD in benefits and technical consultations to help you replicate and publish your app with ISV Success
