How to Connect AI Agents to SharePoint, Salesforce, and Enterprise Systems

To connect AI agents to enterprise systems, you need more than an API token and a prompt. In real organizations, systems like SharePoint, Salesforce, ServiceNow, and internal databases contain sensitive content, strict permissions, and operational workflows that can’t be “best effort.” If you want to connect AI agents to enterprise systems safely, you need an integration approach that supports identity, least privilege, auditable actions, and permission-aware retrieval so agents can read and act without becoming a new security risk.

This guide breaks down the practical integration patterns, the security model that actually works in enterprise environments, and a reference architecture you can use to go from proof of concept to production.

What “connecting an AI agent” actually means in the enterprise

An AI agent is not just a chatbot that answers questions. In an enterprise setting, an agent is an end-to-end workflow that can retrieve knowledge, reason over it, and take real actions across business systems.

When you connect AI agents to enterprise systems, you’re typically enabling one (or more) of these modes:

• Read: retrieve content for Q&A, summarization, and analysis (often via RAG)

• Write: create or update records (cases, opportunities, tickets, documents)

• Act: trigger workflows (approvals, escalations, notifications, follow-ups)

These modes map to where your data and operations live:

• SharePoint and file repositories: documents, policies, project folders, templates

• Salesforce and CRMs: accounts, contacts, opportunities, cases, activities

• ERP and data warehouses: financials, inventory, orders, operational metrics

• ITSM tools: incidents, changes, knowledge articles, runbooks

A useful mental model: connecting an agent means giving it controlled “hands and eyes” inside your systems. The “eyes” need permission-aware retrieval. The “hands” need guardrails, approvals, and audit trails.

Integration patterns (choose the right approach)

There isn’t one best way to connect AI agents to enterprise systems. Most successful deployments combine multiple patterns, depending on whether the agent is reading, writing, or orchestrating multi-step processes.

Pattern A — Tool/API calling (real-time actions)

Tool calling is the pattern where the agent invokes functions or APIs directly to take action in a system of record.

Use this when you need real-time, transactional operations, such as:

• Create a Salesforce case from an email thread summary

• Update opportunity notes after a call

• Upload a finalized document to a SharePoint library

• Open a ServiceNow incident with the right category and priority

Pros:

• Real-time data and actions

• Enforcement via the system’s native auth and permissions

• Clear operational semantics (create, update, approve)

Cons:

• Reliability work is on you (retries, timeouts, rate limits)

• Agents can make incorrect changes unless you constrain inputs and validate outputs

• Multi-step workflows can fail halfway without idempotency and orchestration

This is where enterprise teams often add a tool execution service that handles throttling, retries, and policy checks before anything touches production systems.

Pattern B — RAG over enterprise content (read-heavy)

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is the pattern for read-heavy scenarios: the agent searches and retrieves relevant content from enterprise repositories, then uses it to answer questions or produce summaries.

Use this when your goal is:

• “What is our latest SOW template and when was it updated?”

• “Summarize all documents in the deal room folder”

• “Extract key dates, renewal terms, and indemnification clauses from these contracts”

• “What policy applies to this exception request?”

Pros:

• Scales well for knowledge access across large content collections

• Minimizes brittle prompt-only approaches by grounding answers in documents

• Works across multiple systems, not just one

Cons:

• You must get permissions right (ACL trimming) or you risk leaking information

• Freshness matters; stale indexes create incorrect answers

• Content quality issues (scanned PDFs, inconsistent metadata) require preprocessing

In enterprise environments, the difference between “RAG demo” and “RAG in production” is almost always permissioning, freshness, and observability.

Pattern C — Event-driven + workflow orchestration

This pattern connects AI agents to enterprise systems through events and orchestrated workflows rather than direct calls from the agent for everything.

Common building blocks:

• Webhooks (e.g., record updated, ticket created)

• Queues and topics (for reliability and backpressure)

• Orchestrators and iPaaS tools (MuleSoft, Boomi, Logic Apps, Power Automate)

Use this when:

• You need durability and auditability

• Actions must be sequenced with clear checkpoints

• Long-running workflows occur over minutes/hours/days (approvals, escalations, follow-ups)

Pros:

• Strong reliability (retries, dead-letter queues, replay)

• Better separation of duties (agent decides, workflow executes)

• Easier compliance posture with structured logs and step-by-step history

Cons:

• More moving parts and integration overhead

• Higher upfront architecture and ops work

For many enterprises, this is the safest way to let an agent “act” without giving it direct, broad write access everywhere.

Pattern D — Prebuilt connectors vs custom connectors

To connect AI agents to enterprise systems, you’ll choose between prebuilt connectors and custom integrations, or a hybrid of both.

Decision criteria:

• Time-to-value: prebuilt connectors win for common systems and standard needs

• Flexibility: custom tools win for unique business logic, bespoke APIs, and edge cases

• Compliance and control: custom tooling can provide stricter policy enforcement and logging

• On-prem and hybrid: custom connectors are often required when systems aren’t internet-accessible

A pragmatic approach is hybrid:

• Use prebuilt connectors for common read operations and indexing

• Add a small number of custom tools for high-value actions with strong validation and approvals

Security & identity: how agents authenticate safely

Most “agent integration” projects fail in production because the identity model is an afterthought. In an enterprise, connecting AI agents to enterprise systems must respect the same security assumptions as any other application: least privilege, segmented environments, and strong auditability.

OAuth 2.0 flows you’ll actually use

In practice, these are the flows that show up in enterprise integrations:

Authorization Code (user-delegated)

• Best when the agent acts on behalf of a specific employee

• Works well for “my documents,” “my accounts,” and user-scoped actions

• Aligns with identity-based access control in systems like Microsoft 365

Client Credentials (service-to-service)

• Best for background jobs, indexing pipelines, and system-level automations

• Must be carefully scoped to avoid becoming an over-permissioned super-account

On-behalf-of (OBO)

• Best when you have a backend service that receives a user token and needs to call downstream APIs as that user

• Useful when you want an agent to respect end-user permissions while keeping token handling in a controlled service

Operationally, token handling matters as much as the flow:

• Cache tokens safely, respect expiry, and rotate secrets/certificates

• Don’t pass tokens into prompts or store them in places that aren’t designed for secrets

• Separate identities for dev/test/prod to prevent accidental cross-environment access

Least privilege & permission scoping

Least privilege is the difference between “helpful assistant” and “data breach waiting to happen.”

Practical least-privilege guidelines:

• Start read-only, then expand to write and act

• Use separate integration identities per system and per environment

• Scope permissions to the smallest possible surface area (specific sites, objects, or endpoints)

• Prefer narrow roles and field-level access over broad “admin” permissions

• Require approvals for high-impact actions (closing a case, changing a contract, updating financial data)

This is also where governance controls matter. In a governed environment, connections should not be shared loosely. Each connection should be owned by its creator, with credentials encrypted and hidden, and administrators should decide whether to share a connection org-wide or restrict it to specific users or groups. Knowledge bases should follow the same explicit permissioning, so only allowlisted users or departments can query specific corpora.

For systems like SharePoint, a strong enforcement model is identity-based: if a user connects with their personal ID, the agent can only retrieve what that user could ordinarily access. If a service account is used, access is limited to that account’s permissions. Some organizations also require end users to authenticate through their own SharePoint credentials before any workflow can read data, ensuring the agent doesn’t bypass identity-based security.

Secrets management & key rotation

To connect AI agents to enterprise systems securely, treat secrets like production-grade infrastructure, not configuration strings.

Good patterns:

• Store secrets in a vault/KMS, not in code, prompts, or workflow descriptions

• Rotate keys and certificates on a defined schedule

• Use certificates over client secrets when possible for stronger security posture

• Separate dev/test/prod secrets and restrict who can access production credentials

Data boundaries for LLMs

A common misconception is that connecting an agent to a system automatically means sending everything to the model. In reality, enterprise deployments set strict boundaries on what is shared with an LLM.

Practical boundaries:

• Don’t send raw secrets, tokens, credentials, or private keys

• Minimize exposure of PII/PHI unless explicitly required and approved

• Redact sensitive fields before model calls when possible

• Use allowlists for what content can be summarized or extracted

• Defend against prompt injection by treating retrieved content as untrusted input and constraining tool use

Connecting AI agents to SharePoint (Microsoft Graph + governance)

SharePoint is often the richest knowledge source in an enterprise: policies, deal rooms, project documentation, templates, and team sites. It’s also permission-heavy, which makes it a perfect example of why secure integration matters.

What to access: sites, drives, lists, pages, files

Common access targets include:

• Sites and subsites (organizational structure)

• Document libraries and drives (files and folders)

• Lists (structured data like trackers, inventories, requests)

• Pages (intranet pages, documentation pages)

• File versions and metadata (history and authorship)

Example use cases:

• Find the latest SOW template in a central library and summarize changes from the prior version

• Summarize all documents in a deal folder and draft an executive brief

• Extract obligations, renewal dates, and termination clauses from contracts stored in SharePoint

Microsoft Graph is typically the modern API surface for these operations, though some environments still rely on SharePoint-specific endpoints for legacy scenarios.

Authentication & permissions checklist (Entra ID)

When you connect AI agents to enterprise systems like SharePoint, your Entra ID configuration is the foundation.

Checklist:

1. Create an app registration (tenant-aware) with a clear ownership model

2. Decide delegated vs application permissions

3. Restrict the scope

4. Handle enterprise controls

5. Define how end-user enforcement will work

RAG workflow for SharePoint documents (practical steps)

If your goal is read-heavy access, a permission-aware RAG pipeline is often the most scalable way to connect AI agents to enterprise systems.

A practical pipeline:

1. Ingest documents from SharePoint (by site/library scopes)

2. Extract text (handle Office formats, PDFs, and HTML pages)

3. OCR scanned PDFs and images when needed

4. Chunk content into retrievable passages

5. Generate embeddings and index in a retrieval layer

6. Preserve metadata (site, library, folder path, author, modified date, doc type)

7. Attach ACLs to each chunk for permission-aware retrieval

The ACL step is non-negotiable in enterprises. Without it, the index becomes a side channel that can expose content across departments.

Operational considerations

SharePoint integrations fail quietly if you don’t plan for operations.

What to design for:

• Rate limits and throttling: build backoff and retry strategies

• Incremental sync: detect changes by modified timestamps and versioning

• Large file handling: streaming, size limits, and selective processing

• File versioning: ensure summaries reference the correct version

• Content quality: OCR accuracy, corrupted documents, embedded images

• Freshness: define SLAs for how quickly new content becomes searchable

Connecting AI agents to Salesforce (CRM data + actions)

Salesforce is different from SharePoint: it’s highly structured, strongly permissioned, and often the system where “small mistakes” create big downstream operational pain. That’s why guardrails matter when you connect AI agents to enterprise systems for CRM actions.

What agents can do in Salesforce

Common read scenarios:

• Pull account context before a customer call

• Retrieve open opportunities and summarize risks

• Search knowledge articles to draft a support response

• Summarize case history and escalation notes

Common write scenarios:

• Create or update cases based on inbound emails

• Log call notes and create follow-up tasks

• Draft emails for sales or support reps to review

For high-impact changes, add guardrails:

• Require approval for updates to key fields (stage, amount, close date)

• Limit writes to specific objects and fields

• Enforce validation rules so the system rejects malformed updates

Authentication approaches

Typical Salesforce auth models:

• OAuth via a connected app for user-delegated access

• Integration user for service-to-service workflows, carefully scoped

Operational considerations:

• Refresh tokens and session policies must align with enterprise security rules

• Token storage must be secure and separated by environment

• Sandboxes should mirror production permissions for realistic testing

Data modeling for agent use

Agents perform best when you define what data is safe and useful.

Practical steps:

• Identify the minimal set of objects and fields needed for the use case

• Enforce field-level security and record visibility

• Avoid exposing sensitive fields unless required (and explicitly approved)

• Use structured tool inputs and outputs so the agent can’t “invent” fields or values

• Add validation rules and post-action checks to prevent hallucinated updates

A simple example: instead of letting an agent update an opportunity arbitrarily, create a tool that accepts only specific fields, validates them, and rejects updates outside a defined policy.

A note on SharePoint ↔ Salesforce document scenarios

A common pattern is:

• Store documents in SharePoint for collaboration and versioning

• Store references (links, metadata, document IDs) in Salesforce

This avoids duplicating large files in CRM storage, keeps document permissions in SharePoint, and lets Salesforce remain the system of record for the customer or deal context.

Connecting to “other enterprise systems” (ERP, ITSM, data warehouses)

Once you’ve connected AI agents to enterprise systems like SharePoint and Salesforce, the next step is usually “everything else”: ERP, ITSM, HRIS, and analytics platforms.

Common targets and what changes

Typical systems:

• ERP: SAP, Oracle (financials, procurement, inventory)

• ITSM: ServiceNow, Jira (incidents, changes, knowledge)

• HRIS: Workday (employee data, org structure)

• Data platforms: internal SQL databases, warehouses, lakes

What changes across these systems:

• API maturity varies widely (modern REST vs SOAP vs proprietary gateways)

• Data models are complex and tightly coupled to business processes

• Write actions can be high-risk (financial postings, employee changes, inventory updates)

The integration layer (recommended in enterprises)

Direct-to-ERP tool calls from an agent are risky without controls. Enterprises typically insert an integration layer that provides:

• API gateway enforcement (auth, rate limits, request validation)

• Queues for reliability and backpressure

• Idempotency and retries for safe multi-step execution

• Observability and structured auditing

• A mapping layer to translate between agent intent and enterprise data models

This is often where teams define a canonical “business action” API:

• “Create invoice dispute”

• “Open incident”

• “Request access”

• “Submit purchase request”

Agents shouldn’t need to know ERP field-level complexity. They should invoke a well-defined business action with validated inputs.

On-prem and hybrid connectivity

Many enterprises still operate critical systems in private networks. To connect AI agents to enterprise systems in these environments, you’ll need:

• Private networking and egress controls

• Secure connector services running in the network

• Strict outbound allowlists (only required endpoints)

• Environment isolation and logging

When regulated data is involved, hybrid connectivity is often the standard approach: keep sensitive systems and connectors inside controlled networks, and expose only necessary, audited interfaces to the agent runtime.

Reference architecture: a scalable “agent + tools + knowledge” stack

A production-ready architecture to connect AI agents to enterprise systems typically separates concerns so security and reliability don’t depend on the model behaving perfectly.

At a high level:

1. Agent runtime: handles conversation, reasoning, and policy constraints

2. Tooling layer: a controlled function/connector layer for API calls

3. Retrieval layer: indexed enterprise content with permission checks

4. Enterprise systems: SharePoint, Salesforce, ERP, ITSM, databases

5. Observability and governance: logs, audits, evaluations, approvals

Recommended separation in practice:

• Tool execution service

• Indexer pipeline

• Policy engine and human oversight

This design assumes a simple truth: an agent can be helpful, but it should never be omnipotent.

Testing, monitoring, and governance (what makes it “enterprise-ready”)

Enterprises don’t just deploy integrations; they operate them. If you want to connect AI agents to enterprise systems sustainably, you need testing discipline, monitoring, and governance built in from day one.

Test strategy

A practical enterprise test stack includes:

• Unit tests for tool functions (input validation, output parsing, error handling)

• Integration tests against sandboxes (Salesforce sandbox, SharePoint test sites)

• Regression suites for retrieval (“golden questions” with expected sources)

• Adversarial tests for prompt injection and tool misuse attempts

• Permission tests to confirm ACL trimming behaves correctly

Observability

Monitor both tool execution and retrieval quality:

Tool-call metrics:

• latency, error rates, retries, timeouts

• rate limit incidents

• idempotency conflicts and duplicate prevention

Retrieval metrics:

• hit rate (is the right document retrieved?)

• freshness (how recently was the source updated?)

• citation/source quality (are answers grounded in the right content?)

• permission denials (are users being correctly restricted?)

For high-impact workflows, add human review checkpoints. Built-in review and approval workflows can prevent a single mistaken action from propagating across systems.

Governance & compliance checklist

If you’re connecting agents into regulated or sensitive workflows, align with common governance requirements:

• Explicit permissioning for connections and knowledge bases

• Access reviews and clear ownership of integration identities

• Audit trails for every tool call and every write/action

• Data retention policies and deletion workflows

• DLP and eDiscovery considerations for stored outputs and logs

• Vendor and model risk controls (what is stored, where, and for how long)

A key principle is that connections should be owned, encrypted, and never casually shared, and knowledge bases should be allowlisted so only authorized users or departments can query them. That separation prevents accidental cross-functional data exposure while still enabling teams to move fast.

Implementation roadmap (from PoC to production)

A straightforward way to connect AI agents to enterprise systems without getting stuck in perpetual piloting:

Week 1–2: Scope and boundaries

1. Pick one high-value use case (preferably read-only first)

2. Define data boundaries (what the agent can and cannot access)

3. Choose the integration pattern (tool calling, RAG, orchestration, or hybrid)

Week 3–4: Build the first working slice

1. Implement 1–2 tools or one retrieval pipeline

2. Add permission model and identity approach (delegated vs service)

3. Validate with real users in a controlled environment

Week 5–6: Harden for production

1. Add logging, retries, timeouts, and rate limiting

2. Add approvals for write/actions

3. Run security review and expand tests (including permission tests)

Production: Operate and improve

1. Monitor, run regression tests, and implement change management

2. Review access regularly and rotate secrets

3. Expand coverage system by system, use case by use case

Conclusion

To connect AI agents to enterprise systems successfully, focus on the parts that make enterprise software enterprise: identity, least privilege, permission-aware retrieval, reliable execution, and governance. The goal isn’t just to make an agent “work.” The goal is to make it safe, auditable, and dependable enough that security and compliance teams trust it, and operators can run it without surprises.

Book a StackAI demo: https://www.stack-ai.com/demo