正解：

Explanation:
No / No / Yes
The ADO MCP configuration does not satisfy the stated production gate because it lacks the required allowed- tool restriction and disables approval; its discovered schema also conflicts with the gate ' s schema restrictions. The GitHub configuration likewise cannot be considered schema-compliant based on the shown metadata. The third statement, however, is true: Microsoft Foundry MCP tool configuration supports an
`allowed_tools` allowlist that limits which discovered MCP tools are exposed to the agent. Adding ` " allowed_tools " : [ " get_profile " ]` therefore restricts the GitHub MCP integration to that tool, assuming the name matches the discovered tool exactly. This control is materially stronger tha n relying on prompt instructions because excluded tools are not presented as available choices. The corrected sequence is No, No, Yes. The same configuration should be paired with auditable identity, trace, and evaluation data so reviewers can prove which principal acted, which policy was applied, and why a request was allowed or blocked. That is particularly important for production multi-agent systems with external tools.
Official Microsoft reference: Microsoft Foundry agents - Model Context Protocol tools

正解：

Explanation:
Refund specialist agent: Agent-as-tools; Compliance review agent: Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol.
The refund specialist runs in the same process as the triage agent, so exposing it as an agent-as-tool is the lightweight composition pattern. The outer triage agent can decide when to invoke the specialist while retaining overall task ownership. The compliance reviewer is different: it is a remote service owned by a partner team. Agent-to-Agent (A2A) is the interoperable protocol intended for independently hosted agents that may use a different runtime or framework. It supports capability discovery and remote task interaction without coupling the caller to the partner ' s implementation. Using A2A for the in-process specialist would add unnecessary network/protocol complexity, while treating the partner agent as an in-process tool would not match the deployment boundary. The two selections therefore reflect Microsoft ' s distinction between local agent composition and remote agent interoperability. The implementation should also preserve clear inputs and outputs around this step so that later agents receive only the information they require. This improves debuggability and keeps token, permission, and state growth under control as the workflow becomes more complex.
Official Microsoft reference: Microsoft Agent Framework - agents as tools and A2A

正解：C  🗳️

解説: (Fast2test メンバーにのみ表示されます)

正解：

Explanation:
Yes / Yes / No
The first statement is true because the tool-integration contract returns only the explicitly defined `final_text` from FraudReview to ClaimsPlanner; the planner does not automatically receive the specialist ' s entire internal execution history. The second statement is also true because an external REST service such as PremiumRates can be exposed as an OpenAPI-defined tool. The OpenAPI schema describes operations and parameters, while the surrounding agent system retains conversational state; the REST tool itself does not need a developer-managed chat transcript. The third statement is false under the shown configuration because the partner publishes tool descriptors as published while the planner defines which schemas it accepts or rejects. Compatibility handling therefore occurs at the consumer/tool boundary rather than requiring PartnerIntegrations to rewrite every unsupported schema before invocation. The correct sequence is Yes, Yes, No. At implementation time, the same rule should be expressed through the framework or service configuration rather than left only as a natural-language convention. That makes the behavior repeatable across runs, easier to test, and less sensitive to model variability.
Official Microsoft reference: Microsoft Foundry agents - OpenAPI tools