Add functionapp create command #1327

colbytimm · 2025-12-08T03:47:11Z

What does this PR do?

Adds azmcp functionapp create command to create Azure Function Apps with automatic dependency provisioning.

Features

Multiple hosting plans: Consumption (default), Flex Consumption, Premium, App Service, Container App
Runtime support: .NET, Node.js, Python, Java, PowerShell with automatic OS selection
Auto-provisioning: Creates Storage accounts and App Service plans when not specified
Smart defaults: Appropriate SKUs and configurations per hosting type

GitHub issue number?

#77

Pre-merge Checklist

…ners package references

…tions and tests

… App configuration

…ate FunctionAppJsonContext for serialization

…pp creation

…put scenarios

…and related services

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds the azmcp functionapp create command to enable creating Azure Function Apps with comprehensive automatic dependency provisioning and flexible hosting options.

Key Changes

Introduces the FunctionAppCreateCommand with support for multiple hosting plans (Consumption, Flex Consumption, Premium, App Service, Container Apps)
Implements automatic provisioning of Storage accounts and App Service plans when not specified
Adds intelligent runtime and OS selection logic with sensible defaults for .NET, Node.js, Python, Java, and PowerShell
Extends FunctionAppInfo model with operating system field for better resource tracking

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 18 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
`FunctionAppService.cs`	Core service implementation with create logic, validation, OS resolution, and dual strategies for App Service vs Container Apps hosting
`FunctionAppCreateCommand.cs`	Command implementation with comprehensive option definitions, validation, and error handling
`FunctionAppCreateCommandTests.cs`	Extensive unit tests covering validation, parameter combinations, configuration building, and edge cases
`FunctionAppCommandTests.cs`	Live integration tests for various hosting plans and runtime combinations
`FunctionAppInfo.cs`	Model update adding operating system property
`IFunctionAppService.cs`	Interface extension for the create operation
`FunctionAppCreateOptions.cs`	New options class for create command parameters
`FunctionAppOptionDefinitions.cs`	Option definitions for location, plan, runtime, and storage parameters
`FunctionAppSetup.cs`	Registration of the new create command
`FunctionAppJsonContext.cs`	JSON serialization context update
`Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp.csproj`	Package references for Storage and AppContainers SDKs
`ResourceGroupService.cs` / `IResourceGroupService.cs`	New method for resource group creation (though not used by FunctionApp service)
`azmcp-commands.md`	Command documentation addition
`e2eTestPrompts.md`	Test prompts for the new command
`consolidated-tools.json`	Tool metadata for create_azure_app_resource
`cspell.json`	Dictionary additions for new terms

Copilot · 2025-12-08T04:20:52Z

tools/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp/src/Commands/FunctionApp/FunctionAppCreateCommand.cs

+        * python -> 3.12
+        * node -> 22
+        * dotnet -> 8.0
+        * java -> 21.0


Documentation inconsistency: The command description states the default Java version is "21.0" (line 72), but the code implementation in GetDefaultRuntimeVersion returns "17" for Java runtime (line 55 in FunctionAppService.cs). These should match.

Suggested change

* java -> 21.0

* java -> 17.0

Copilot · 2025-12-08T04:20:53Z

tools/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp/src/Services/FunctionAppService.cs

+        {
+            baseName = "func";
+        }
+        var trimmed = baseName.Length > 18 ? baseName.Substring(0, 18) : baseName;


Consider using baseName[..18] instead of baseName.Substring(0, 18) for consistency with modern C# range syntax used elsewhere in the file (e.g., line 526 uses version[..^2]).

Suggested change

var trimmed = baseName.Length > 18 ? baseName.Substring(0, 18) : baseName;

var trimmed = baseName.Length > 18 ? baseName[..18] : baseName;

Copilot · 2025-12-08T04:20:53Z

...App/tests/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp.UnitTests/FunctionApp/FunctionAppCreateCommandTests.cs

+    [Theory]
+    [InlineData("invalid")]
+    [InlineData("mac")]
+    [InlineData("WINDOWS")]


Test case issue: The test expects "WINDOWS" (uppercase) to throw an ArgumentException, but the code normalizes the OS input to lowercase in ValidateAndNormalizeInputs (line 109 in FunctionAppService.cs: os.Trim().ToLowerInvariant()). After normalization, "WINDOWS" becomes "windows" which is a valid value, so this test will fail. Either update the test to use a truly invalid value like "mac" or "invalid", or verify that uppercase values are actually rejected before normalization.

Suggested change

[InlineData("WINDOWS")]

Copilot · 2025-12-08T04:20:53Z

tools/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp/src/Commands/FunctionApp/FunctionAppCreateCommand.cs

+        * flex / flexconsumption -> FC1 (FlexConsumption, Linux only)
+        * premium / functionspremium -> EP1 (Elastic Premium)
+        * appservice   -> B1 (Basic) unless overridden by --plan-sku
+    * containerapp -> Creates a Container App instead of an App Service plan/site (no plan created). Container App will reuse the function-app name.


Documentation formatting: Line 56 starts with an asterisk (*) instead of proper indentation/formatting like the lines above it. This should be indented consistently with the other bullets (lines 52-55) to maintain proper documentation structure.

Suggested change

* containerapp -> Creates a Container App instead of an App Service plan/site (no plan created). Container App will reuse the function-app name.

* containerapp -> Creates a Container App instead of an App Service plan/site (no plan created). Container App will reuse the function-app name.

Copilot · 2025-12-08T04:20:54Z

tools/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp/src/Services/FunctionAppService.cs

+        foreach (var p in parts)
+        {
+            if (p.StartsWith("AccountName=", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
+                return p[12..];
+        }


This foreach loop implicitly filters its target sequence - consider filtering the sequence explicitly using '.Where(...)'.

JasonYeMSFT · 2025-12-08T20:00:54Z

core/Azure.Mcp.Core/src/Areas/Server/Resources/consolidated-tools.json

+        },
+        "readOnly": {
+          "value": false,
+          "description": "This tool only performs read operations without modifying any state or data."


This description should describe what the tool/tools will do to support this metadata value. Given that readOnly is false, it shouldn't say this tool only performs read operations. You can look at other tools with readOnly=false.

Same comment for other metadata descriptions.

JasonYeMSFT · 2025-12-08T21:39:42Z

tools/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp/src/Commands/FunctionApp/FunctionAppCreateCommand.cs

+    - os: windows|linux. Default: windows unless runtime/plan requires linux (python, flex consumption, containerapp). Overridden to linux automatically when required. Python & flex consumption do not support Windows.
+
+    Automatic resources & defaults:
+    - Storage account: Always created (Standard_LRS, HTTPS only, blob public access disabled). Name pattern: <sanitized-functionapp>[random6]. Connection string injected as AzureWebJobsStorage.


Azure Function supports using managed identity to connect to storage account. If it is not too hard we should recommend users to use that instead of the connection string since connection strings use storage account keys.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/storage-considerations?tabs=azure-cli#storage-account-connection-setting

I see. I was following what Azure Portal does by default. That's been my pattern. I don't disagree that using managed identities are best practices.

JasonYeMSFT · 2025-12-08T21:59:19Z

tools/Azure.Mcp.Tools.FunctionApp/src/Options/FunctionAppOptionDefinitions.cs

+    public const string RuntimeVersionName = "runtime-version";
+    public const string OperatingSystemName = "os";
+    public const string StorageAccountName = "storage-account";
+    public const string ContainerAppsEnvironmentName = "container-apps-environment";


If I understand correctly, this option will be ignored when not using the containerapp plan, if not rejected by the argument validation logic.

I don't feel good that some arguments will be completely ignored depending on the value of some other arguments. This looks like a signal that there should be two commands. One is for creating a traditional Azure Function App using an App Service Plan. The other is for creating a container app that runs an Azure Function App.

I can see how that would be clearer. I'll work on breaking these out into two separate commands.

colbytimm added 10 commits December 7, 2025 19:29

Add create_azure_app_resource tool with metadata and mapping

ba44039

Add Azure Function App creation commands and test prompts

8881b89

Implement CreateOrUpdateResourceGroup method in ResourceGroupService

8467f71

Add Azure.ResourceManager.Storage and Azure.ResourceManager.AppContai…

494d6cf

…ners package references

Add OperatingSystem property to FunctionAppInfo and update related op…

9ee3b79

…tions and tests

Add FunctionAppCreateOptions class with properties for Azure Function…

e049070

… App configuration

Add CreateFunctionApp method to IFunctionAppService interface and upd…

5158569

…ate FunctionAppJsonContext for serialization

Add FunctionAppCreateCommand to FunctionAppSetup for Azure Function A…

89c98f3

…pp creation

Add unit tests for FunctionAppCreateCommand to validate input and out…

aca8641

…put scenarios

Add additional terms to cspell configuration for Azure Function Apps …

767ccf7

…and related services

github-project-automation bot added this to Azure MCP Server Dec 8, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Untriaged in Azure MCP Server Dec 8, 2025

colbytimm mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2025

Add azmcp functionapp create command #604

Closed

17 tasks

colbytimm marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2025 04:16

colbytimm requested review from a team and jongio as code owners December 8, 2025 04:16

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 8, 2025 04:16

colbytimm requested a review from a team as a code owner December 8, 2025 04:16

colbytimm requested review from JasonYeMSFT, alzimmermsft, chidozieononiwu, fanyang-mono, hallipr and joshfree December 8, 2025 04:16

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of colbytimm December 8, 2025 04:16 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

JasonYeMSFT reviewed Dec 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Add functionapp create command #1327

Add functionapp create command #1327

Uh oh!

colbytimm commented Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025

Uh oh!

colbytimm Dec 14, 2025

Uh oh!

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

colbytimm Dec 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

	var trimmed = baseName.Length > 18 ? baseName.Substring(0, 18) : baseName;
	var trimmed = baseName.Length > 18 ? baseName[..18] : baseName;

	* containerapp -> Creates a Container App instead of an App Service plan/site (no plan created). Container App will reuse the function-app name.
	* containerapp -> Creates a Container App instead of an App Service plan/site (no plan created). Container App will reuse the function-app name.

Add functionapp create command #1327

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add functionapp create command #1327

Uh oh!

Conversation

colbytimm commented Dec 8, 2025

What does this PR do?

Features

GitHub issue number?

Pre-merge Checklist

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Key Changes

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

colbytimm Dec 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

colbytimm Dec 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

JasonYeMSFT Dec 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading