AB-620 Certification Exam Guide + Practice Questions Updated 2026

DRAG DROP
A company plans to use Copilot connectors to ground answers from a third-party system for an agent in Copilot Studio .
To meet the business needs, responsibilities for configuring and using Copilot connectors must be separated, based on the following requirements:
✑ For tenant administration, the connector must be available at the tenant level.
✑ For agent runtime behavior, answers must be grounded from authorized sources.
✑ For builder configuration, you must add the connector to the agent.
You need to determine how Copilot connector set-up responsibilities are handled across tenant, runtime, and builder stages.
What should you configure for each requirement? To answer, move the appropriate configuration to the correct requirements. You may use each configuration once, more than once, or not at all. You may need to move the split bar between panes or scroll to view content. NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.

A company uses multiple Copilot Studio agents that perform specialized tasks.
The company needs to enable one agent to directly delegate and invoke another agent within Copilot Studio by using a standard Copilot Studio interface.
You need to configure collaboration among agents by using Copilot Studio.
What should you do?

DRAG DROP

Case Study
This is a case study. Case studies are not timed separately from other exam sections. You can use as much exam time as you would like to complete each case study. However, there might be additional case studies or other exam sections. Manage your time to ensure that you can complete all the exam sections in the time provided. Pay attention to the Exam Progress at the top of the screen so you have sufficient time to complete any exam sections that follow this case study.
To answer the case study questions, you will need to reference information that is provided in the case. Case studies and associated questions might contain exhibits or other resources that provide more information about the scenario described in the case. Information provided in an individual question does not apply to the other questions in the case study.
A Review Screen will appear at the end of this case study. From the Review Screen, you can review and change your answers before you move to the next exam section. After you leave this case study, you will NOT be able to return to it.

To start the case study
To display the first question in this case study, select the "Next" button. To the left of the question, a menu provides links to information such as business requirements, the existing environment, and problem statements. Please read through all this information before answering any questions. When you are ready to answer a question, select the "Question" button to return to the question.

Background
Fabrikam Inc. is a Canada-based manufacturer with a growing service organization that supports field technicians and internal operations teams. Fabrikam Inc. plans to launch a new internal agent solution named Operations Concierge to reduce time spent searching policy content, retrieving operational metrics, and executing routine transactions .
The agent will be used by three groups:
Service coordinators who triage incoming service requests
Field technicians who need guided procedures and parts availability Operations managers who monitor KPIs and exceptions
The agent solution must work in real-world operational conditions. Users often ask questions mid-call with a customer or while coordinating parts shipments. The agents require quick, reliable outcomes. As a result, Fabrikam Inc. requires the solution to: Provide grounded answers with traceability when it provides guidance. Retrieve real-time metrics when users ask for operational status.
Execute authenticated updates when users initiate a flow (such as creating a parts request).
Fabrikam Inc. also expects the solution to be maintained by multiple makers and developers across the year. The company has experienced duplicated logic and inconsistent behavior across different agents. This project emphasizes reuse, governance, and maintainability across teams.

Current environment
Fabrikam Inc. runs three Microsoft Power Platform environments for agent development and release: Dev, Test, and Prod.
The team plans to build the agent and validate it in Dev and Test, then promote to Prod by using a controlled release process that supports repeatable deployments.
Fabrikam Inc. already has two assets the team wants to reuse:
A partially completed Copilot Studio agent named Service Desk Agent, used by IT to create internal tickets and route requests
A Microsoft Foundry agent created by a central AI team that performs specialized summarization and classification for long-form text (for example, summarizing call transcripts into an incident narrative) Fabrikam Inc. also has operational and knowledge data sources:
A curated policy library (internal SOPs, service warranty rules, escalation criteria, and standard operating procedures)
A set of indexed documents and procedures in an Azure AI Search service that supports vector search for the policy library A Microsoft Fabric workspace that includes a semantic model used by operations leadership for reporting

Business requirements
Fabrikam Inc. requires Operations Concierge to meet the following business requirements:
Traceability requirement: When the agent provides policy guidance or procedural recommendations, users must be able to see where the answer came from.
Metrics requirement: When users ask about service performance (backlog, SLA risk, parts shortages, dispatch delays), the solution must return up-to-date metrics in a structured format that operations managers can use in weekly reviews.
Transaction requirement: The solution must support authenticated updates initiated during conversations, including creating a parts request and updating a service case status.
In addition, Fabrikam Inc. wants to avoid duplicating common assets across agents:
The team must reuse the same set of escalation topics, MCP tool definitions, and a standard safety disclaimer across three different agents.
Only the platform engineering group as allowed to edit shared assets. However, all agent authors must be able to use them.

Technical requirements
The Fabrikam Inc. solution architecture uses a multi-agent approach so that specialist responsibilities are isolated and can evolve independently.
The Operations Concierge (primary agent) must coordinate the following specialist capabilities:
Policy and procedure Q&A: Use an enterprise knowledge source that supports indexed retrieval across the curated policy library and service procedures.
Operational metrics: Delegate metric queries to a Fabric Data Agent that reads governed business data through the Fabric semantic model.
Authenticated updates: Use tools exposed by an existing internal Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides transactional operations for the service organization.
Specialized processing: Delegate summarization and classification requests to an existing Microsoft Foundry agent.
Fabrikam Inc. will onboard two MCP servers as tools:
PartsOps MCP server: exposes tools for parts availability checks and parts request creation. The server requires per-user authentication because actions must be traceable to the requesting user.
WarrantyRules MCP server: exposes a read-only tool for validating warranty coverage. The server uses an API key shared by the agent team.
Fabrikam Inc. has also defined a collaboration requirement with the existing Service Desk Agent:
The primary agent must delegate IT-specific requests to the existing Service Desk Agent rather than reimplement ticket creation logic.
Finally, Fabrikarn Inc. plans to support a partner integration:
For shipment tracking inquiries, Fabrikam Inc. will delegate to a partner-provided agent that is only available through a standardized agent-to-agent endpoint.

Issues and constraints
During early testing, Fabrikam Inc. found three recurring problems:
Makers are copying and modifying the same components across agents, resulting in inconsistent disclaimers and duplicated tools.
Users can obtain a correct answer, but the response is not consistently traceable to a source when the agent uses knowledge. The primary agent can route some requests, but specialist capabilities are not consistently delegated (for example, some metric questions are answered generatively instead of being routed to the Fabric Data Agent).
You are part of the engineering team responsible for correcting the design and configuration to meet the preceding requirements and constraints.

You need to integrate Fabrikam Inc.'s existing Foundry agent so Operations Concierge can delegate summarization requests.
Which action should you perform for each requirement? To answer, move the appropriate actions to the correct requirements. You may use each action once, more than once, or not at all. You may need to move the split bar between panes or scroll to view content. NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.
After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear on the review screen.
An agent uses a flow that calls an external service which can occasionally fail or time out.
When a failure occurs, the agent must meet the following requirements:
✑ Must not terminate silently.
✑ Must send a notification containing the error details.
You need to configure the agent flow so that failures are handled in a controlled and predictable way.
Solution: Configure run after conditions for failure paths.
Does the solution meet the goal?

DRAG DROP
A team is preparing a test set to evaluate an agent in Copilot Studio before expanding access to additional users.
The test set must support consistent evaluation across repeated runs and focus on the agent's most important behaviors.
You need to create a test set that enables repeatable and meaningful evaluation.
In which order should you perform the actions? To answer, move all actions from the list of actions to the answer area and arrange them in the correct order.