Graph-level, auth, and governance testing

Beyond individual brokers and wire formats, three properties need their own suites: is the network wired correctly, does each connection authenticate correctly, and are policies applied consistently across the estate. These are structural and security checks, not behavioral regression.

What you will learn

How to test network topology and Agent Script wiring at the graph level.
Why every connection needs a dedicated auth-flow test (especially MCP).
How to check policy consistency across all network assets.

Agent network / graph-level testing

Separate from any single broker’s regression suite, test the network topology itself:

Are connections, routing links, and connection configs wired correctly at the graph level?
Do runtime-level capabilities actually match what the graph configuration implies? A config can declare a capability the current runtime does not support - a gap caught only by testing the graph/runtime combination directly, not any individual broker.
Test Agent Script wiring specifically: confirm invocation targets and subagent references resolve to the correct destination.

Forward-looking

Graph-level topology testing and Agent Script wiring assertions for Agent Network 2.0 reflect field practice; confirm the exact configuration surface and any tooling against current MuleSoft Agent Fabric documentation before standardizing on it.

Authentication / authorization testing per connection

Each connection’s authentication method needs its own dedicated auth-flow test - confirming token exchange, scope enforcement, and header propagation work correctly for that specific method, not just that a request happened to succeed.

MCP in particular is deliberately auth-agnostic by spec: the protocol does not prescribe authentication, so MCP server testing must include explicit authorization tests. The protocol itself will not catch a missing permission check. This complements the ABAC-over-MCP controls you applied in Govern with Omni Gateway policies: here you prove those controls actually hold.

A 200 is not an authorization test

‘The request succeeded’ only proves the happy path. Assert that missing scopes are rejected, tokens are exchanged correctly, and headers propagate - especially for auth-agnostic MCP connections.

Governance / policy consistency testing

With multiple agents and MCP servers in one network, test that policy categories are applied consistently across every asset - not present on some and missing on others. Cover, at minimum:

Protocol-level policies (schema validation, agent card).
Tool/MCP policies (ABAC over MCP servers).
LLM/AI usage policies.
Telemetry policies (message logging).

How this fits with regression

Regression validates that known-good behavior holds as code, prompts, or config change. The suites in this lesson validate different properties: topology correctness and security posture. Run them as separate, purpose-built suites - do not fold them into the golden-dataset/semantic mechanism used for regression, since they check structural and spec correctness rather than behavioral consistency. Gate them appropriately: conformance and spec validation as fast-fail gates, auth and governance tests on every connection/policy change, and graph tests whenever topology changes.

Where to go next

You now have the full taxonomy. Finally, put it into practice - from manual checks to fully automated gates: Automating tests with gateway policies and Platform APIs.