Tracking a live LLM endpoint with inference tables and Agent Monitoring
Databricks Model Serving can log every request and response payload for a live LLM endpoint to a Delta table called an inference table, giving you a durable, queryable record of production traffic. Agent Evaluation / Agent Monitoring builds on these logs (or on trace data from MLflow tracing) to continuously score quality, safety, and performance metrics for deployed GenAI agents, surfacing them in a monitoring dashboard.
1 · Learn the must-know
- Inference tables must be enabled at endpoint creation/update time and are stored as managed Delta tables in Unity Catalog, with request and response payloads captured automatically for every call.
- Inference table logging is asynchronous and near real-time, so there can be a short delay between a request being served and the corresponding row appearing in the table.
- Agent Monitoring relies on MLflow tracing (spans) captured from the deployed agent to reconstruct multi-step reasoning, tool calls, and retrieval steps for evaluation, not just the raw input/output pair.
- Quality and safety metrics (e.g., relevance, groundedness, toxicity, guideline adherence) are computed using Databricks' built-in LLM judges, which can run on a sample or all of the logged production traffic on a schedule.
- Because inference tables can grow quickly and contain sensitive data, teams should apply table ACLs, retention/lifecycle policies, and column masking as needed rather than assuming default protection.
- Monitoring dashboards and metrics update on a schedule (not instantaneously), so newly deployed changes to an agent may take some time before their impact is reflected in the monitoring UI.
2 · Check your understanding
A Generative AI Engineer deploys a RAG chatbot on a Mosaic AI Model Serving endpoint and must retain every request and response payload in Unity Catalog for compliance auditing. The team wants this capture to happen automatically, without adding custom logging code inside the serving container. Which approach should the engineer use?
What you have tried across Databricks GenAI Engineer's objectives, not a readiness score.
Design Applications10.71% of the exam*0 of 6 tried
Data Preparation14.29% of the exam*0 of 8 tried
Application Development23.21% of the exam*0 of 13 tried
Assembling and Deploying Applications26.79% of the exam*0 of 15 tried
Governance7.14% of the exam*0 of 4 tried
Evaluation and Monitoring17.86% of the exam*0 of 10 tried
* Our estimate. Databricks publishes no section weights.
3 · Keep going
Ready for more? Take a weighted mock or try free practice questions.