Salesforce Updated Agentforce-Specialist Exam Questions and Answers by daniela

In Salesforce Agentforce, a custom retriever is used to fetch relevant data (e.g., from Data Cloud’s vector database or Salesforce records) to ground AI responses. UC’s issue is that their retriever returns too many irrelevant results, reducing response accuracy. The best solution is to define filters (Option A) to refine the retriever’s search criteria. Filters allow UC to specify conditions (e.g., "only retrieve documents from the ‘Policy’ category” or “records created after a certain date”) that narrow the dataset, ensuring the retriever returns only relevant results. This directly improves the precision of AI-generated responses by excluding extraneous data, addressing UC’s problem effectively.

Option B: Changing the search index to a different data model object (DMO) might be relevant if the retriever is querying the wrong object entirely (e.g., Accounts instead of Policies). However, the question implies the retriever is functional but unrefined, so adjusting the existing setup with filters is more appropriate than switching DMOs.

Option C: Increasing the maximum number of results would worsen the issue by returning even more data, including more irrelevant entries, contrary to UC’s goal of improving relevance.

Option A: Filters are a standard feature in custom retrievers, allowing precise control over retrieved data, making this the correct action.

Option A is the most effective step to ensure relevance in retrieved data.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) in AgentForce and Salesforce AI architecture enables agents to dynamically discover and connect to external tools or APIs during runtime. The documentation defines it as: “MCP allows LLMs to query registered tool endpoints and retrieve their schemas, enabling dynamic tool discovery and invocation in enterprise AI environments.”

This makes Option A correct — a legal assistant agent using MCP to find a document classification API illustrates the dynamic, protocol-driven discovery and use of enterprise tools.

Option B, agent-to-agent conversation, involves Agent Network Communication, not MCP. Option C, agent capability discovery through Agent Cards, refers to the Agent Directory feature.

Therefore, Option A best reflects Salesforce’s documented description of MCP’s role in enterprise AI integrations.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Architecture Guide: “Model Context Protocol Overview”

AgentForce Developer Study Notes: “Dynamic Tool and API Discovery with MCP”

AgentForce Technical Overview: “Enterprise AI Integration via MCP”

According to the AgentForce Session Memory and Context Management Guide, when specific customer preferences (such as dietary or activity selections) must persist throughout an interaction, the correct approach is to use a context variable. The documentation states: “Context variables retain information across the user session, enabling the agent to reference prior inputs or outputs without re-asking. They are ideal for persisting customer preferences, authentication data, or ongoing session parameters.”

By contrast, custom variables (Option A) are typically used for storing intermediate action outputs but are not automatically persistent across the full session. Relying on conversation memory (Option B) alone is non-deterministic and may cause data loss due to memory truncation or token limits.

Thus, Option C — creating a context variable to store and recall customer preferences — aligns with Salesforce’s recommended implementation for session-level persistence.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Configuration Guide: “Using Context Variables for Session Data”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Persistent Memory and Variable Management”

AgentForce Implementation Handbook: “Maintaining Context Across User Sessions”

Prompt Builder is explicitly required to create AI-generated summary fields via prompt templates. These fields use natural language instructions to extract or synthesize information (e.g., summarizing contract terms). Time-to-close estimations (A) and lead scores (C) are typically handled by predictive AI (e.g., Einstein Opportunity Scoring) or analytics tools, which do not require Prompt Builder.