MCPA-Level-1 MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect - Level 1 Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Explanation

Correct Answer: In parallel, invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment and the system API deployed to the DR environment, and ONLY use the first response.

*****************************************

>> The API requirement in the given scenario is to respond in least possible time.

>> The option that is suggesting to first try the API in primary environment and then fallback to API in DR environment would result in successful response but NOT in least possible time. So, this is NOT a right choice of implementation for given requirement.

>> Another option that is suggesting to ONLY invoke API in primary environment and to add timeout and retries may also result in successful response upon retries but NOT in least possible time. So, this is also NOT a right choice of implementation for given requirement.

>> One more option that is suggesting to invoke API in primary environment and API in DR environment in parallel using Scatter-Gather would result in wrong API response as it would return merged results and moreover, Scatter-Gather does things in parallel which is true but still completes its scope only on finishing all routes inside it. So again, NOT a right choice of implementation for given requirement

The Correct choice is to invoke the API in primary environment and the API in DR environment parallelly, and using ONLY the first response received from one of them.

For an organization starting with API-led connectivity to integrate a siloed back-end system with a new CRM, the following approach aligns with best practices and MuleSoft’s Center for Enablement (C4E) guidance:

API-led Connectivity: This model organizes APIs into distinct layers (System, Process, and Experience) to improve reusability, modularity, and manageability.

System APIs are used to expose and unlock data from core systems (such as back-end applications or databases).

Process APIs orchestrate data across multiple systems and transform it as needed.

Experience APIs format the data specifically for consumption by applications or devices, such as the CRM in this case.

Step to Support Application Network:

Create a System API for the back-end system. This API should expose the necessary data to support integration with the CRM.

By creating a System API with a RESTful interface, data can be accessed in a standardized way, making it easier to integrate with other systems and supporting future scalability.

Why Option D is Correct:

Creating a System API aligns with the principle of API-led connectivity, ensuring that data is exposed in a reusable manner. This API can then be orchestrated by Process APIs as needed to meet CRM requirements and can easily be extended to other applications.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option A (creating a business process model) does not directly enable connectivity or expose back-end data through APIs.

Option B is unnecessary at this stage; assessing CRM capabilities like OAuth 2.0 support is not directly related to creating the application network via System APIs.

Option C contradicts API-led best practices by suggesting a point-to-point integration, which API-led connectivity seeks to avoid due to its lack of flexibility and scalability.

ReferencesRefer to MuleSoft’s API-led Connectivity resources for a detailed framework on building scalable integration layers using System, Process, and Experience APIs​​.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Allow System APIs to return data that is NOT currently required by the identified Process or Experience APIs.

*****************************************

>> All customizations for the end-user application should be handled in "Experience API" only. Not in Process API

>> We should use tiered approach but NOT always by creating exactly one API for each of the 3 layers. Experience APIs might be one but Process APIs and System APIs are often more than one. System APIs for sure will be more than one all the time as they are the smallest modular APIs built in front of end systems.

>> Process APIs can call System APIs as well as other Process APIs. There is no such anti-design pattern in API-Led connectivity saying Process APIs should not call other Process APIs.

So, the right answer in the given set of options that makes sense as per API-Led connectivity principles is to allow System APIs to return data that is NOT currently required by the identified Process or Experience APIs. This way, some future Process APIs can make use of that data from System APIs and we need NOT touch the System layer APIs again and again.

Understanding the Requirements:

The business needs to transfer daily data changes from the Salesforce Account and Case objects to AWS DynamoDB in a single JSON format.

Only a subset of attributes (5 from Account and 8 from Case) is required, so it is not necessary to include all 219 attributes of the Account object.

Design Approach:

A System API (SAPI) should be created for each Salesforce object (Account and Case), exposing only the required fields (5 attributes for Account and 8 for Case).

A Process API (PAPI) can be used to aggregate and transform the data from these SAPIs, combining the 13 selected attributes from Account and Case into a single JSON structure for DynamoDB.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Mimicking all attributes in the SAPI is inefficient and unnecessary, as only 13 attributes are required.

Option B: Replicating all attributes in DynamoDB is excessive and would result in higher storage and processing costs, which is unnecessary given the requirement for only a subset of attributes.

Option C: Implementing an Enterprise Data Model could be useful in broader data management but is not required here, as the focus is on a lightweight integration.

Option D (Correct Answer): Creating separate entities in SAPI for Account and Case with only the required attributes and using the PAPI to aggregate them into a single JSON is the most efficient and meets the requirements effectively.

Conclusion:

Option D is the best choice as it provides a lightweight, efficient design that meets the requirements by transferring only the necessary attributes and minimizing resource use.

Refer to MuleSoft's best practices for API-led connectivity and data modeling to structure SAPIs and PAPIs efficiently.

Explanation

Correct Answer: API Consumer

*****************************************

>> API clients are piece of code or programs that use the client credentials of API consumer but does not directly interact with Anypoint Exchange to get the access

>> API consumer is the one who should get registered and request access to API and then API client needs to use those client credentials to hit the APIs

So, API consumer is the one who needs to request access on the API from Anypoint Exchange

Explanation

Correct Answer: TRUE

*****************************************

>> As per MuleSoft proposed IT Operating Model, designing APIs and making sure that they are discoverable and self-servable is VERY VERY IMPORTANT and decides the success of an API and its application network.

To accommodate the new requirement of allowing updates to existing quotes, the following actions should be taken:

Update the RAML Definition (Option C):

The RAML specification defines the structure and behavior of the API. Adding a new method (such as PUT or PATCH) for updating quotes requires modifying the RAML to include this new endpoint. This ensures the API specification is up-to-date and accurately reflects the new functionality.

Update the API Implementation (Option A):

Once the RAML is updated, the backend API implementation must also be modified to handle the new update requests. This could involve adding logic to process and validate update requests, connect to necessary backend resources, and apply the changes to existing quotes.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option B (removing and creating new clients) is unnecessary; client applications can remain as they are, with no need for complete replacement.

Option D (deprecating existing versions) may not be required if backward compatibility is maintained.

Option E (adding a new policy) does not facilitate functional changes and is unrelated to implementing the update feature.

ReferencesFor more details on updating RAML definitions and API implementations, refer to MuleSoft’s API Design documentation on RAML and RESTful API practices​.

Understanding Spike Control and Rate Limiting Policies:

Spike Control Policy: Limits the number of requests processed by the API in a short time to handle sudden bursts of traffic. It does not queue requests but rejects any request that exceeds the allowed burst rate.

Rate Limiting Policy: Sets a limit on the number of requests that an API can handle within a given timeframe. Once the limit is reached, additional requests are rejected.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Incorrect. In both Spike Control and Rate Limiting policies, requests are rejected once the limit is reached. Spike Control does not queue requests; it only controls the burst rate by rejecting excessive requests.

Option B (Correct Answer): In a clustered environment, each node independently enforces the Rate Limiting and Spike Control policies, meaning that the limits apply to each node separately. This ensures that each node can control its own resource usage independently within the cluster.

Option C: This is partially correct, as Rate Limiting is often used to protect Experience APIs, but Spike Control could also be useful in limiting resource consumption under high burst conditions.

Option D: Incorrect. Although a contract is required to enforce client-specific policies, Rate Limiting and Spike Control do not require a contract to function for general traffic control.

Conclusion:

Option B is the correct answer because, in a clustered environment, Rate Limiting and Spike Control policies apply separately to each node, helping each instance to manage its own load.

For more information, refer to MuleSoft’s documentation on applying Rate Limiting and Spike Control policies in a clustered environment.

In scenarios where multiple API implementations are deployed across different environments (CloudHub and customer-hosted runtimes), Anypoint Functional Monitoring is the most effective tool to monitor API availability and trigger alerts when an API implementation becomes unresponsive. Here’s how it works:

Using Anypoint Functional Monitoring:

Functional Monitoring allows you to create monitors that periodically invoke specific endpoints on the API implementations, simulating a client request. This helps ensure that the API is responsive, even if no actual client requests are being made.

If an API implementation does not respond as expected, Functional Monitoring can generate alerts, notifying administrators of potential issues.

Why Option A is Correct:

By setting up Functional Monitoring to automatically invoke the API endpoints at regular intervals, you ensure continuous monitoring and alerting capabilities, which are especially useful for APIs that may experience periods of low or no traffic. This approach provides a proactive solution, allowing you to identify and address issues before actual users are impacted.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option B suggests modifying client applications to trigger alerts, which is not a best practice as it shifts monitoring responsibility to clients, reducing control and consistency.

Option C involves handling exceptions within client applications, which does not address situations where no clients are making requests.

Option D proposes a Worker Not Responding alert in Runtime Manager, which is limited to worker-specific alerts and may not reliably monitor the API's actual responsiveness to requests.

ReferencesFor further information, refer to MuleSoft documentation on Anypoint Functional Monitoring setup and usage for API availability monitoring​.

Understanding the Requirements:

Business Groups: The solution must support two business groups, which typically require separate VPCs for logical separation.

High Availability (HA): Requires deploying resources across multiple availability zones.

Dedicated Load Balancer (DLB): Traffic should be routed via DLBs, which operate within VPCs on CloudHub.

Separate Environments: There needs to be separation between production and non-production environments.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Using a single production and non-production VPC and differentiating business groups via availability zones is not ideal as it does not provide full separation for each business group, and using maximum CIDR allocation is wasteful.

Option B (Correct Answer): Creating separate production and non-production VPCs per business group with minimized CIDR blocks, multiple availability zones, and multiple workers per application for HA meets all requirements effectively.

Option C: While this option separates VPCs per business group, it does not fully address the requirement for HA across availability zones by specifying multi-zone deployment only during API deployment, which may not guarantee redundancy.

Option D: Configuring subnets to differentiate business groups within a single production and non-production VPC does not fully separate the business groups, which is a requirement.

Conclusion:

Option B is the best choice as it meets the requirements for high availability, business group separation, and cost efficiency by using minimized CIDR allocations and deploying multiple workers across availability zones.

For further reference, refer to MuleSoft's documentation on VPC configuration and high availability deployment strategies.

Security Guidelines Overview:

The production environment is hosted on a dedicated Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) on CloudHub 1.0, with a specific requirement from the security team that no traffic should occur over HTTP. This implies that only secure HTTPS traffic should be permitted, and HTTP access (port 8081, the default HTTP port in Mule applications) should be disabled.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A (Correct Answer): Configuring the HTTPS protocol in the HTTP listener in the Mule application ensures that all traffic is encrypted and occurs over HTTPS (port 8092 by default for HTTPS on Mule applications). This directly aligns with the security guideline to prevent unencrypted HTTP traffic.

Option B: Creating a custom policy for incoming and outgoing HTTP requests could provide some control over access, but it does not enforce the use of HTTPS exclusively. This option does not disable HTTP traffic and, therefore, does not meet the guideline effectively.

Option C (Correct Answer): Removing the entry for HTTP (port 8081) in the VPC firewall rule ensures that HTTP traffic is completely blocked at the firewall level. This prevents any HTTP requests from reaching the application, adding a layer of security that complies with the guidelines.

Option D: The IP Blocklist policy controls access based on IP addresses but does not enforce the use of HTTPS. This policy does not address the specific requirement of preventing HTTP traffic.

Option E: Adding a firewall rule entry for HTTP (port 8081) would enable HTTP traffic, which directly contradicts the security guidelines. Therefore, this option should be avoided.

Conclusion:

Option A and Option C are the correct choices. Configuring the HTTPS protocol in the Mule application’s HTTP listener ensures that only HTTPS traffic is allowed, and removing the firewall rule for HTTP (port 8081) blocks any HTTP traffic from reaching the application. Together, these options enforce secure traffic as required by the security guidelines.

Refer to MuleSoft documentation on configuring HTTP listeners and managing VPC firewall rules for further details on implementing these security controls.

Explanation

Correct Answer: When regulatory requirements mandate on-premises processing of EVERY data item, including meta-data.

*****************************************

We need NOT require to use Anypoint Platform PCE or PCF for the below. So these options are OUT.

>> We can make ALL applications highly available across multiple data centers using CloudHub too.

>> We can use Anypoint VPN and tunneling from CloudHub to connect to ALL backend systems in the application network that are deployed in the organization's intranet.

>> We can use Anypoint VPC and Firewall Rules to make ALL APIs private and NOT exposed to the public cloud.

Only valid reason in the given options that requires to use Anypoint Platform PCE/ PCF is - When regulatory requirements mandate on-premises processing of EVERY data item, including meta-data.

Explanation

Correct Answer: They provide an additional layer of resilience on top of the underlying backend system, thereby insulating clients from extended failure of these systems.

*****************************************

In API-led connectivity,

>> Experience APIs - allow for innovation at the user interface level by consuming the underlying assets without being aware of how data is being extracted from backend systems.

>> Process APIs - compose data from various sources and combine them with orchestration logic to create higher level value

>> System APIs - reduce the dependency on the underlying backend systems by helping unlock data from backend systems in a reusable and consumable way.

However, they NEVER promise that they provide an additional layer of resilience on top of the underlying backend system, thereby insulating clients from extended failure of these systems.

https://dzone.com/articles/api-led-connectivity-with-mule

Understanding the API Flow and Timeout Requirement:

The Order API initiates a call to the OrderItems process API, which in turn calls the Inventory system API to fetch details from the inventory database.

The requirement specifies that the Order API should not wait more than two seconds for a response from the OrderItems process API, even if there are delays further down the chain (between Inventory system API and the database).

Choosing the Appropriate Timeout Location:

Setting the timeout at the OrderItems process API level ensures that if the Inventory system API takes longer than two seconds to respond, the OrderItems process API will terminate the request and send a timeout response back to the Order API. This prevents the Order API from waiting indefinitely due to the unreliable connection to the database.

If the timeout were set in the Inventory system API or database, it would not help the Order API directly, as the OrderItems process API would still be waiting for a response.

Detailed Analysis of Each Option:

Option A (Correct Answer): Setting the timeout in the OrderItems process API allows it to control how long it waits for a response from the Inventory system API. If the Inventory system API does not respond within two seconds, the OrderItems process API can terminate the call and return a timeout response to the Order API, meeting the requirement.

Option B: Setting the timeout in the Order API would not limit the wait time at the OrderItems process API level, meaning the OrderItems process API could still wait indefinitely for the Inventory system API, leading to a longer delay.

Option C: Setting the timeout in the Inventory system API only affects the connection to the database and does not influence how long the OrderItems process API waits for the Inventory system API's response.

Option D: Setting a timeout in the database is not feasible in this context since database timeouts are typically configured for database operations and would not directly control the API response times in the overall API chain.

Conclusion:

Option A is the best choice, as it ensures that the OrderItems process API does not hold the Order API longer than the required two seconds, even if the downstream connection to the database hangs. This configuration aligns with MuleSoft best practices for setting timeouts in API orchestration to manage dependencies and prevent delays across a chain of API calls.

For additional information on timeout settings, refer to MuleSoft documentation on handling timeouts and API orchestration best practices.

Explanation

Correct Answer: The visibility level of the API instances of that API that need to be publicly accessible should be set to public visibility.

*****************************************

Explanation

Correct Answer: Set a timeout of 100ms; that leaves 400ms for other two downstream APIs to complete

*****************************************

Key details to take from the given scenario:

>> Upstream API's designed SLA is 500ms (median). Lets ignore maximum SLA response times.

>> This API calls 3 downstream APIs sequentially and all these are of similar complexity.

>> The first downstream API is offering median SLA of 100ms, 80th percentile: 500ms; 95th percentile: 1000ms.

Based on the above details:

>> We can rule out the option which is suggesting to set 50ms timeout. Because, if the median SLA itself being offered is 100ms then most of the calls are going to timeout and time gets wasted in retried them and eventually gets exhausted with all retries. Even if some retries gets successful, the remaining time wont leave enough room for 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs to respond within time.

>> The option suggesting to NOT set a timeout as the invocation of this API is mandatory and so we must wait until it responds is silly. As not setting time out would go against the good implementation pattern and moreover if the first API is not responding within its offered median SLA 100ms then most probably it would either respond in 500ms (80th percentile) or 1000ms (95th percentile). In BOTH cases, getting a successful response from 1st downstream API does NO GOOD because already by this time the Upstream API SLA of 500 ms is breached. There is no time left to call 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs.

>> It is NOT true that no timeout is possible to meet the upstream APIs desired SLA.

As 1st downstream API is offering its median SLA of 100ms, it means MOST of the time we would get the responses within that time. So, setting a timeout of 100ms would be ideal for MOST calls as it leaves enough room of 400ms for remaining 2 downstream API calls.

Explanation

Correct Answer: 4.0.0

*****************************************

As per semver.org semantic versioning specification:

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

- MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes.

- MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner.

- PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes.

As per the scenario given in the question, the API implementation is completely changing its behavior. Although the format of the time is still being maintained as hh:mm:ss and there is no change in schema w.r.t format, the API will start functioning different after this change as the times are going to come completely different.

Example: Before the change, say, time is going as 09:00:00 representing the PST. Now on, after the change, the same time will go as 18:00:00 as Central European Summer Time is 9 hours ahead of Pacific Time.

>> This may lead to some uncertain behavior on API clients depending on how they are handling the times in the API response. All the API clients need to be informed that the API functionality is going to change and will return in CEST format. So, this considered as a MAJOR change and the version of API for this new change would be 4.0.0

Explanation

Correct Answer: Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment

*****************************************

There is one important consideration to be noted in the question which is - System API in DR environment provides only 20% of the rate limiting offered by the primary environment. So, comparitively, very less calls will be allowed into the DR environment API opposed to its primary environment. With this in mind, lets analyse what is the right and best fault-tolerant invocation strategy.

1. Invoking both the system APIs in parallel is definitely NOT a feasible approach because of the 20% limitation we have on DR environment. Calling in parallel every time would easily and quickly exhaust the rate limits on DR environment and may not give chance to genuine intermittent error scenarios to let in during the time of need.

2. Another option given is suggesting to add timeout and retry logic to process API while invoking primary environment's system API. This is good so far. However, when all retries failed, the option is suggesting to invoke the copy of process API on DR environment which is not right or recommended. Only system API is the one to be considered for fallback and not the whole process API. Process APIs usually have lot of heavy orchestration calling many other APIs which we do not want to repeat again by calling DR's process API. So this option is NOT right.

3. One more option given is suggesting to add the retry (no timeout) logic to process API to directly retry on DR environment's system API instead of retrying the primary environment system API first. This is not at all a proper fallback. A proper fallback should occur only after all retries are performed and exhausted on Primary environment first. But here, the option is suggesting to directly retry fallback API on first failure itself without trying main API. So, this option is NOT right too.

This leaves us one option which is right and best fit.

- Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment

- Add Timeout and Retry logic on it in process API

- If it fails even after all retries, then invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment.