Custom Prompts and Foundry Models for Summarization
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 configure Operations Concierge so that prompt-driven summarization behavior aligns with Fabrikam Inc.'s architectural requirements. Which two actions should you perform? Each correct answer presents part of the solution. NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.
Community Insight
The question tests how to align custom-prompt summarization with a multi-agent architecture, and the trap is choosing grounding or citation options (A, D) that address knowledge traceability rather than the summarization model configuration being asked about.
For Fabrikam's Operations Concierge, prompt-driven summarization must be configured through Copilot Studio custom prompts that pull a model from the Microsoft Foundry model catalog, then applied via a reusable custom prompt template. This pairs the architectural requirement of delegating specialized summarization to the Foundry capability with the stated business goal of eliminating duplicated logic across agents.
Option A (Azure AI Search as the grounding source) is the most tempting wrong pick because the case mentions an Azure AI Search service and a traceability problem; but grounding sources govern generative answers from knowledge, not the specialized summarization path that must use the Foundry model catalog. Option D (enabling citations) is similarly a traceability control, not a prompt/model configuration action.
Community Discussion (2 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Option C is required because the custom prompt configuration in Copilot Studio lets makers choose a model from the Microsoft Foundry model catalog, which is exactly how Fabrikam's central AI team's summarization and classification capability is expressed architecturally — the question asks that prompt-driven summarization "align with Fabrikam Inc.'s architectural requirements," and that architecture routes specialized processing to Foundry. Option E is the second required action because the case explicitly cites duplicated logic and inconsistent disclaimers across agents, and the reuse requirement mandates that shared assets be authored once by platform engineering and consumed by all agent authors; a reusable custom prompt template applied wherever summarization responses are generated satisfies both the consistency and reuse mandates. Together, C and E configure the model source and the delivery mechanism for summarization behavior.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
Read the stem's exact scope: it asks only about configuring prompt-driven summarization behavior, so pick actions that configure a prompt and its model, not answers that fix other problems named elsewhere in the case (traceability, grounding, publishing). When a case lists several real issues, distractors usually map to those other issues rather than to the asked configuration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why isn't Azure AI Search used as the grounding source for summarization prompts?
Azure AI Search grounds generative answers from the indexed policy library; the case explicitly delegates specialized summarization to Foundry, so grounding there would bypass the required architecture.
Why is enabling citations not part of configuring summarization behavior?
Citations govern how traceability renders on knowledge-based answers, addressing the case's traceability gap, but they neither select a summarization model nor create a reusable prompt template.