Skip to main content

Semantic Kernel – Auto function calling

A  few weeks ago I got contacted by someone(Hi Chris!) who was trying to get my Semantic Kernel demo's up and running on his machine. Chris tried to get the application up and running but got some error messages. I used his input to improve the readme file and updated the main branch to simplify the getting started experience.

However there was one specific error he shared that I want to talk about a little more. Here is the screenshot he shared with me:

 


The reason that he got this error is because ‘auto function calling’ was enabled in the code and the model he was using didn’t support this feature.

Remark: I updated the code to disable auto function calling after I got his email.

A good excuse to talk a little more about this feature…

What is (auto) function calling in Semantic Kernel?

With function calling, you give the LLM the option to interact with your existing code. You can do this quite explicit as I explained in my OllamaSharp post but with Semantic Kernel the process is greatly simplified by automatically describing the registered functions and their parameters to the model and then handling the back-and-forth communication between the model and your code. The model itself will decide based on the provided prompt if a specific function should be called or not.

To make this work you need to create a plugin containing one or more KernelFunction methods:

This plugin should be registered in Semantic Kernel:

Auto function calling is enabled by default in Semantic Kernel:

But you can disable it using the following code:

What models can I use that support function calling?

If you are using Ollama, you can use the filter on the Models page to list only models that support tooling:

More information

Function calling with chat completion | Microsoft Learn

wullemsb/SemanticKernel: Demo code for my AI session

Tool support in OllamaSharp

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...