AGENTIC AI IN THE ENTERPRISE: STRATEGY, ARCHITECTURE, AND IMPLEMENTATION – PART 5

This is a continuation of my previous post, which can be found here. This will be our last post of this series.

Let us recap the key takaways from our previous post –

Two cloud patterns show how MCP standardizes safe AI-to-system work. Azure “agent factory”: You ask in Teams; Azure AI Foundry dispatches a specialist agent (HR/Sales). The agent calls a specific MCP server (Functions/Logic Apps) for CRM, SharePoint, or SQL via API Management. Entra ID enforces access; Azure Monitor audits. AWS “composable serverless agents”: In Bedrock, domain agents (Financial/IT Ops) invoke Lambda-based MCP tools for DynamoDB, S3, or CloudWatch through API Gateway with IAM and optional VPC. In both, agents never hold credentials; tools map one-to-one to systems, improving security, clarity, scalability, and compliance.

In this post, we’ll discuss the GCP factory pattern.

The GCP “unified workbench” pattern prioritizes a unified, data-centric platform for AI development, integrating seamlessly with Vertex AI and Google’s expertise in AI and data analytics. This approach is well-suited for AI-first companies and data-intensive organizations that want to build agents that leverage cutting-edge research tools.

Let’s explore the following diagram based on this –

Imagine Mia, a clinical operations lead, opens a simple app and asks: “Which clinics had the longest wait times this week? Give me a quick summary I can share.”

  • The app quietly sends Mia’s request to Vertex AI Agent Builder—think of it as the switchboard operator.
  • Vertex AI picks the Data Analysis agent (the “specialist” for questions like Mia’s).
  • That agent doesn’t go rummaging through databases. Instead, it uses a safe, preapproved tool—an MCP Server—to query BigQuery, where the data lives.
  • The tool fetches results and returns them to Mia—no passwords in the open, no risky shortcuts—just the answer, fast and safely.

Now meet Ravi, a developer who asks: “Show me the latest app metrics and confirm yesterday’s patch didn’t break the login table.”

  • The app routes Ravi’s request to Vertex AI.
  • Vertex AI chooses the Developer agent.
  • That agent calls a different tool—an MCP Server designed for Cloud SQL—to check the login table and run a safe query.
  • Results come back with guardrails intact. If the agent ever needs files, there’s also a Cloud Storage tool ready to fetch or store documents.

Let us understand how the underlying flow of activities took place –

  • User Interface:
    • Entry point: Vertex AI console or a custom app.
    • Sends a single request; no direct credentials or system access exposed to the user.
  • Orchestration: Vertex AI Agent Builder (MCP Host)
    • Routes the request to the most suitable agent:
      • Agent A (Data Analysis) for analytics/BI-style questions.
      • Agent B (Developer) for application/data-ops tasks.
  • Tooling via MCP Servers on Cloud Run
    • Each MCP Server is a purpose-built adapter with least-privilege access to exactly one service:
      • Server1 → BigQuery (analytics/warehouse) — used by Agent A in this diagram.
      • Server2 → Cloud Storage (GCS) (files/objects) — available when file I/O is needed.
      • Server3 → Cloud SQL (relational DB) — used by Agent B in this diagram.
    • Agents never hold database credentials; they request actions from the right tool.
  • Enterprise Systems
    • BigQueryCloud Storage, and Cloud SQL are the systems of record that the tools interact with.
  • Security, Networking, and Observability
    • GCP IAM: AuthN/AuthZ for Vertex AI and each MCP Server (fine-grained roles, least privilege).
    • GCP VPC: Private network paths for all Cloud Run MCP Servers (isolation, egress control).
    • Cloud Monitoring: Metrics, logs, and alerts across agents and tools (auditability, SLOs).
  • Return Path
    • Results flow back from the service → MCP Server → Agent → Vertex AI → UI.
    • Policies and logs track who requested what, when, and how.
  • One entry point for questions.
  • Clear accountability: specialists (agents) act within guardrails.
  • Built-in safety (IAM/VPC) and visibility (Monitoring) for trust.
  • Separation of concerns: agents decide what to do; tools (MCP Servers) decide how to do it.
  • Scalable: add a new tool (e.g., Pub/Sub or Vertex AI Feature Store) without changing the UI or agents.
  • Auditable & maintainable: each tool maps to one service with explicit IAM and VPC controls.

So, we’ve concluded the series with the above post. I hope you like it.

I’ll bring some more exciting topics in the coming days from the new advanced world of technology.

Till then, Happy Avenging! 🙂

AGENTIC AI IN THE ENTERPRISE: STRATEGY, ARCHITECTURE, AND IMPLEMENTATION – PART 3

This is a continuation of my previous post, which can be found here.

Let us recap the key takaways from our previous post –

Enterprise AI, utilizing the Model Context Protocol (MCP), leverages an open standard that enables AI systems to securely and consistently access enterprise data and tools. MCP replaces brittle “N×M” integrations between models and systems with a standardized client–server pattern: an MCP host (e.g., IDE or chatbot) runs an MCP client that communicates with lightweight MCP servers, which wrap external systems via JSON-RPC. Servers expose three assets—Resources (data), Tools (actions), and Prompts (templates)—behind permissions, access control, and auditability. This design enables real-time context, reduces hallucinations, supports model- and cloud-agnostic interoperability, and accelerates “build once, integrate everywhere” deployment. A typical flow (e.g., retrieving a customer’s latest order) encompasses intent parsing, authorized tool invocation, query translation/execution, and the return of a normalized JSON result to the model for natural-language delivery. Performance introduces modest overhead (RPC hops, JSON (de)serialization, network transit) and scale considerations (request volume, significant results, context-window pressure). Mitigations include in-memory/semantic caching, optimized SQL with indexing, pagination, and filtering, connection pooling, and horizontal scaling with load balancing. In practice, small latency costs are often outweighed by the benefits of higher accuracy, stronger governance, and a decoupled, scalable architecture.

Compared to other approaches, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) offers a uniquely standardized and secure framework for AI-tool integration, shifting from brittle, custom-coded connections to a universal plug-and-play model. It is not a replacement for underlying systems, such as APIs or databases, but instead acts as an intelligent, secure abstraction layer designed explicitly for AI agents.

This approach was the traditional method for AI integration before standards like MCP emerged.

  • Custom API integrations (traditional): Each AI application requires a custom-built connector for every external system it needs to access, leading to an N x M integration problem (the number of connectors grows exponentially with the number of models and systems). This approach is resource-intensive, challenging to maintain, and prone to breaking when underlying APIs change.
  • MCP: The standardized protocol eliminates the N x M problem by creating a universal interface. Tool creators build a single MCP server for their system, and any MCP-compatible AI agent can instantly access it. This process decouples the AI model from the underlying implementation details, drastically reducing integration and maintenance costs.

For more detailed information, please refer to the following link.

RAG is a technique that retrieves static documents to augment an LLM’s knowledge, while MCP focuses on live interactions. They are complementary, not competing. 

  • RAG:
    • Focus: Retrieving and summarizing static, unstructured data, such as documents, manuals, or knowledge bases.
    • Best for: Providing background knowledge and general information, as in a policy lookup tool or customer service bot.
    • Data type: Unstructured, static knowledge.
  • MCP:
    • Focus: Accessing and acting on real-time, structured, and dynamic data from databases, APIs, and business systems.
    • Best for: Agentic use cases involving real-world actions, like pulling live sales reports from a CRM or creating a ticket in a project management tool.
    • Data type: Structured, real-time, and dynamic data.

Before MCP, platforms like OpenAI offered proprietary plugin systems to extend LLM capabilities.

  • LLM plugins:
    • Proprietary: Tied to a specific AI vendor (e.g., OpenAI).
    • Limited: Rely on the vendor’s API function-calling mechanism, which focuses on call formatting but not standardized execution.
    • Centralized: Managed by the AI vendor, creating a risk of vendor lock-in.
  • MCP:
    • Open standard: Based on a public, interoperable protocol (JSON-RPC 2.0), making it model-agnostic and usable across different platforms.
    • Infrastructure layer: Provides a standardized infrastructure for agents to discover and use any compliant tool, regardless of the underlying LLM.
    • Decentralized: Promotes a flexible ecosystem and reduces the risk of vendor lock-in. 

The “agent factory” pattern: Azure focuses on providing managed services for building and orchestrating AI agents, tightly integrated with its enterprise security and governance features. The MCP architecture is a core component of the Azure AI Foundry, serving as a secure, managed “agent factory.” 

  • AI orchestration layer: The Azure AI Agent Service, within Azure AI Foundry, acts as the central host and orchestrator. It provides the control plane for creating, deploying, and managing multiple specialized agents, and it natively supports the MCP standard.
  • AI model layer: Agents in the Foundry can be powered by various models, including those from Azure OpenAI Service, commercial models from partners, or open-source models.
  • MCP server and tool layer: MCP servers are deployed using serverless functions, such as Azure Functions or Azure Logic Apps, to wrap existing enterprise systems. These servers expose tools for interacting with enterprise data sources like SharePoint, Azure AI Search, and Azure Blob Storage.
  • Data and security layer: Data is secured using Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) for authentication and access control, with robust security policies enforced via Azure API Management. Access to data sources, such as databases and storage, is managed securely through private networks and Managed Identity. 

The “composable serverless agent” pattern: AWS emphasizes a modular, composable, and serverless approach, leveraging its extensive portfolio of services to build sophisticated, flexible, and scalable AI solutions. The MCP architecture here aligns with the principle of creating lightweight, event-driven services that AI agents can orchestrate. 

  • The AI orchestration layer, which includes Amazon Bedrock Agents or custom agent frameworks deployed via AWS Fargate or Lambda, acts as the MCP hosts. Bedrock Agents provide built-in orchestration, while custom agents offer greater flexibility and customization options.
  • AI model layer: The models are sourced from Amazon Bedrock, which provides a wide selection of foundation models.
  • MCP server and tool layer: MCP servers are deployed as serverless AWS Lambda functions. AWS offers pre-built MCP servers for many of its services, including the AWS Serverless MCP Server for managing serverless applications and the AWS Lambda Tool MCP Server for invoking existing Lambda functions as tools.
  • Data and security layer: Access is tightly controlled using AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) roles and policies, with fine-grained permissions for each MCP server. Private data sources like databases (Amazon DynamoDB) and storage (Amazon S3) are accessed securely within a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC). 

The “unified workbench” pattern: GCP focuses on providing a unified, open, and data-centric platform for AI development. The MCP architecture on GCP integrates natively with the Vertex AI platform, treating MCP servers as first-class tools that can be dynamically discovered and used within a single workbench. 

  • AI orchestration layer: The Vertex AI Agent Builder serves as the central environment for building and managing conversational AI and other agents. It orchestrates workflows and manages tool invocation for agents.
  • AI model layer: Agents use foundation models available through the Vertex AI Model Garden or the Gemini API.
  • MCP server and tool layer: MCP servers are deployed as containerized microservices on Cloud Run or managed by services like App Engine. These servers contain tools that interact with GCP services, such as BigQueryCloud Storage, and Cloud SQL. GCP offers pre-built MCP server implementations, such as the GCP MCP Toolbox, for integration with its databases.
  • Data and security layer: Vertex AI Vector Search and other data sources are encapsulated within the MCP server tools to provide contextual information. Access to these services is managed by Identity and Access Management (IAM) and secured through virtual private clouds. The MCP server can leverage Vertex AI Context Caching for improved performance.

Note that all the native technology is referred to in each respective cloud. Hence, some of the better technologies can be used in place of the tool mentioned here. This is more of a concept-level comparison rather than industry-wise implementation approaches.


We’ll go ahead and conclude this post here & continue discussing on a further deep dive in the next post.

Till then, Happy Avenging! 🙂

AGENTIC AI IN THE ENTERPRISE: STRATEGY, ARCHITECTURE, AND IMPLEMENTATION – PART 2

This is a continuation of my previous post, which can be found here.

Let us recap the key takaways from our previous post –

Agentic AI refers to autonomous systems that pursue goals with minimal supervision by planning, reasoning about next steps, utilizing tools, and maintaining context across sessions. Core capabilities include goal-directed autonomy, interaction with tools and environments (e.g., APIs, databases, devices), multi-step planning and reasoning under uncertainty, persistence, and choiceful decision-making.

Architecturally, three modules coordinate intelligent behavior: Sensing (perception pipelines that acquire multimodal data, extract salient patterns, and recognize entities/events); Observation/Deliberation (objective setting, strategy formation, and option evaluation relative to resources and constraints); and Action (execution via software interfaces, communications, or physical actuation to deliver outcomes). These functions are enabled by machine learning, deep learning, computer vision, natural language processing, planning/decision-making, uncertainty reasoning, and simulation/modeling.

At enterprise scale, open standards align autonomy with governance: the Model Context Protocol (MCP) grants an agent secure, principled access to enterprise tools and data (vertical integration), while Agent-to-Agent (A2A) enables specialized agents to coordinate, delegate, and exchange information (horizontal collaboration). Together, MCP and A2A help organizations transition from isolated pilots to scalable programs, delivering end-to-end automation, faster integration, enhanced security and auditability, vendor-neutral interoperability, and adaptive problem-solving that responds to real-time context.

Great! Let’s dive into this topic now.

Enterprise AI with MCP refers to the application of the Model Context Protocol (MCP), an open standard, to enable AI systems to securely and consistently access external enterprise data and applications. 

Before MCP, enterprise AI integration was characterized by a “many-to-many” or “N x M” problem. Companies had to build custom, fragile, and costly integrations between each AI model and every proprietary data source, which was not scalable. These limitations left AI agents with limited, outdated, or siloed information, restricting their potential impact. 
MCP addresses this by offering a standardized architecture for AI and data systems to communicate with each other.

The MCP framework uses a client-server architecture to enable communication between AI models and external tools and data sources. 

  • MCP Host: The AI-powered application or environment, such as an AI-enhanced IDE or a generative AI chatbot like Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s ChatGPT, where the user interacts.
  • MCP Client: A component within the host application that manages the connection to MCP servers.
  • MCP Server: A lightweight service that wraps around an external system (e.g., a CRM, database, or API) and exposes its capabilities to the AI client in a standardized format, typically using JSON-RPC 2.0. 

An MCP server provides AI clients with three key resources: 

  • Resources: Structured or unstructured data that an AI can access, such as files, documents, or database records.
  • Tools: The functionality to perform specific actions within an external system, like running a database query or sending an email.
  • Prompts: Pre-defined text templates or workflows to help guide the AI’s actions. 
  • Standardized integration: Developers can build integrations against a single, open standard, which dramatically reduces the complexity and time required to deploy and scale AI initiatives.
  • Enhanced security and governance: MCP incorporates native support for security and compliance measures. It provides permission models, access control, and auditing capabilities to ensure AI systems only access data and tools within specified boundaries.
  • Real-time contextual awareness: By connecting AI agents to live enterprise data sources, MCP ensures they have access to the most current and relevant information, which reduces hallucinations and improves the accuracy of AI outputs.
  • Greater interoperability: MCP is model-agnostic & can be used with a variety of AI models (e.g., Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s models) and across different cloud environments. This approach helps enterprises avoid vendor lock-in.
  • Accelerated development: The “build once, integrate everywhere” approach enables internal teams to focus on innovation instead of writing custom connectors for every system.

Let us understand one sample case & the flow of activities.

A customer support agent uses an AI assistant to get information about a customer’s recent orders. The AI assistant utilizes an MCP-compliant client to communicate with an MCP server, which is connected to the company’s PostgreSQL database.

1. User request: The support agent asks the AI assistant, “What was the most recent order placed by Priyanka Chopra Jonas?”

2. AI model processes intent: The AI assistant, running on an MCP host, analyzes the natural language query. It recognizes that to answer this question, it needs to perform a database query. It then identifies the appropriate tool from the MCP server’s capabilities. 

3. Client initiates tool call: The AI assistant’s MCP client sends a JSON-RPC request to the MCP server connected to the PostgreSQL database. The request specifies the tool to be used, such as get_customer_orders, and includes the necessary parameters: 

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "db_tools.get_customer_orders",
  "params": {
    "customer_name": "Priyanka Chopra Jonas",
    "sort_by": "order_date",
    "sort_order": "desc",
    "limit": 1
  },
  "id": "12345"
}

4. Server handles the request: The MCP server receives the request and performs several key functions: 

  • Authentication and authorization: The server verifies that the AI client and the user have permission to query the database.
  • Query translation: The server translates the standardized MCP request into a specific SQL query for the PostgreSQL database.
  • Query execution: The server executes the SQL query against the database.
SELECT order_id, order_date, total_amount
FROM orders
WHERE customer_name = 'Priyanka Chopra Jonas'
ORDER BY order_date DESC
LIMIT 1;

5. Database returns data: The PostgreSQL database executes the query and returns the requested data to the MCP server. 

6. Server formats the response: The MCP server receives the raw database output and formats it into a standardized JSON response that the MCP client can understand.

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "result": {
    "data": [
      {
        "order_id": "98765",
        "order_date": "2025-08-25",
        "total_amount": 11025.50
      }
    ]
  },
  "id": "12345"
}

7. Client returns data to the model: The MCP client receives the JSON response and passes it back to the AI assistant’s language model. 

8. AI model generates final response: The language model incorporates this real-time data into its response and presents it to the user in a natural, conversational format. 

“Priyanka Chopra Jonas’s most recent order was placed on August 25, 2025, with an order ID of 98765, for a total of $11025.50.”

Using the Model Context Protocol (MCP) for database access introduces a layer of abstraction that affects performance in several ways. While it adds some latency and processing overhead, strategic implementation can mitigate these effects. For AI applications, the benefits often outweigh the costs, particularly in terms of improved accuracy, security, and scalability.

The MCP architecture introduces extra communication steps between the AI agent and the database, each adding a small amount of latency. 

  • RPC overhead: The JSON-RPC call from the AI’s client to the MCP server adds a small processing and network delay. This is an out-of-process request, as opposed to a simple local function call.
  • JSON serialization: Request and response data must be serialized and deserialized into JSON format, which requires processing time.
  • Network transit: For remote MCP servers, the data must travel over the network, adding latency. However, for a local or on-premise setup, this is minimal. The physical location of the MCP server relative to the AI model and the database is a significant factor.

The performance impact scales with the complexity and volume of the AI agent’s interactions. 

  • High request volume: A single AI agent working on a complex task might issue dozens of parallel database queries. In high-traffic scenarios, managing numerous simultaneous connections can strain system resources and require robust infrastructure.
  • Excessive data retrieval: A significant performance risk is an AI agent retrieving a massive dataset in a single query. This process can consume a large number of tokens, fill the AI’s context window, and cause bottlenecks at the database and client levels.
  • Context window usage: Tool definitions and the results of tool calls consume space in the AI’s context window. If a large number of tools are in use, this can limit the AI’s “working memory,” resulting in slower and less effective reasoning. 

Caching is a crucial strategy for mitigating the performance overhead of MCP. 

  • In-memory caching: The MCP server can cache results from frequent or expensive database queries in memory (e.g., using Redis or Memcached). This approach enables repeat requests to be served almost instantly without requiring a database hit.
  • Semantic caching: Advanced techniques can cache the results of previous queries and serve them for semantically similar future requests, reducing token consumption and improving speed for conversational applications. 

Designing the MCP server and its database interactions for efficiency is critical. 

  • Optimized SQL: The MCP server should generate optimized SQL queries. Database indexes should be utilized effectively to expedite lookups and minimize load.
  • Pagination and filtering: To prevent a single query from overwhelming the system, the MCP server should implement pagination. The AI agent can be prompted to use filtering parameters to retrieve only the necessary data.
  • Connection pooling: This technique reuses existing database connections instead of opening a new one for each request, thereby reducing latency and database load. 

For large-scale enterprise deployments, scaling is essential for maintaining performance. 

  • Multiple servers: The workload can be distributed across various MCP servers. One server could handle read requests, and another could handle writes.
  • Load balancing: A reverse proxy or other load-balancing solution can distribute incoming traffic across MCP server instances. Autoscaling can dynamically add or remove servers in response to demand.

For AI-driven tasks, a slight increase in latency for database access is often a worthwhile trade-off for significant gains. 

  • Improved accuracy: Accessing real-time, high-quality data through MCP leads to more accurate and relevant AI responses, reducing “hallucinations”.
  • Scalable ecosystem: The standardization of MCP reduces development overhead and allows for a more modular, scalable ecosystem, which saves significant engineering resources compared to building custom integrations.
  • Decoupled architecture: The MCP server decouples the AI model from the database, allowing each to be optimized and scaled independently. 

We’ll go ahead and conclude this post here & continue discussing on a further deep dive in the next post.

Till then, Happy Avenging! 🙂

Demystifying Modern Data Technologies: Insights from the Global PowerBI Summit

In an engaging session at the Global PowerBI Summit, we and our co-host delved into the evolving landscape of data technologies. Our discussion aimed to illuminate the distinctions and applications of several pivotal technologies in the data sphere, ranging from Lakehouse vs. Storage Account to the nuanced differences between Fabric Pipeline and Data Pipeline and the critical comparisons of Notebooks vs. Databricks, including their performance metrics. Furthermore, we explored the realm of model experimentation and Azure ML, shedding light on their performance benchmarks.

  • Enhanced File Previews and Transformations: The Lakehouse paradigm revolutionizes how we preview and transform files into SQL tables, offering a seamless data manipulation experience.
  • Robust Data Governance: It introduces native indexing for data lineage, PII scans, and discovery, thus laying a solid foundation for data governance.
  • Optimized Performance for Reporting: With direct lake mode, Lakehouse significantly improves performance for Power BI Reporting, catering to the needs of data analysts and business intelligence professionals.
  • Functional Restrictions: Despite its strengths, Lakehouse falls short in providing a native file download feature, demands manual refresh for new file visibility, and has limited support for file formats outside of Delta and Parquet.
  • Lakehouse distinguishes itself by being user-friendly and efficient in data uploading, albeit with slower previews. Its distinction from a Storage Account lies in these unique functionalities and user experience.
  • Ease of Data Transformation: It introduces a low-code, no-code approach with the Power Query Editor, enriching the data transformation process.
  • Advanced Monitoring Capabilities: The ability to monitor pipelines and trace lineage enhances the management and integration of fabric artifacts.
  • Artifact and Trigger Limitations: A notable drawback is the isolated nature of each pipeline artifact and the limitation to a single scheduled trigger type per pipeline.
  • Our analysis reveals that while both platforms share a user-friendly interface reminiscent of Azure’s, navigating between pipelines in Fabric requires additional steps. However, both platforms demonstrate rapid execution capabilities, with Azure slightly leading due to its unified pipeline management.
  • Comprehensive Support and Integration: Notably, Notebooks excel in providing native support for various programming and visualization packages, coupled with a direct connection to Lakehouse.
  • Collaborative Features and Efficiency: The platform encourages collaboration through real-time co-editing and optimizes resource usage by stopping clusters when not in use.
  • Cluster and Resource Management: External management of clusters and the absence of a shared folder or user notebooks present challenges in collaborative environments.
  • Our discussion highlighted that Notebooks offers a superior user interface and connectivity options despite Databricks’ having certain advantages in data processing speeds.

Our performance analysis underscored Fabric Notebooks’ superiority in handling large datasets and running machine learning models more efficiently than Databricks, especially highlighting Lakehouse’s faster cluster initiation times and data storage efficiencies.

  • Seamless Integration and Configuration: Fabric’s integration with Lakehouse and direct pipeline connections streamline the data science workflow.
  • Graphical Interface and Focus: Fabric’s lack of a graphical interface contrasts with Azure ML’s user-friendly studio, indicating Fabric’s analytics and BI focus against Azure ML’s comprehensive experiment capabilities.
  • Our comparative performance review revealed that Fabric excels in dataset loading and model execution speeds, offering significant advantages over Azure ML.

Our Global PowerBI Summit session aimed to demystify the complexities of modern data technologies, providing attendees with clear, actionable insights. Our collaborative presentation underscored the importance of understanding each technology’s strengths and limitations, empowering data professionals to make informed decisions in their projects. The dynamic interplay between these technologies illustrates the vibrant and evolving nature of the data landscape, promising exciting possibilities for innovation and efficiency in data management and analysis.

These stats were taken during the early release of the product. However, there is a continuous improvement of this product. Hence, we need to revisit this after a period of some time.