Regulated Reporting
БесплатноНе проверенMCP server for regulated financial reporting on Workiva, enabling agents to search, read, and write to Workiva workbooks with policy-gated mutations, readback v
Описание
MCP server for regulated financial reporting on Workiva, enabling agents to search, read, and write to Workiva workbooks with policy-gated mutations, readback verification, and immutable receipts. Supports both a compact 3-tool facade and a full 117-tool catalog, plus a credential-free mock mode.
README
The problem this answers
In regulated reporting work, three different things get collapsed into one “success”:
- the API accepted a request
- the change was actually applied
- somebody checked the result
Those are not the same event. A 202 is not “done.” An applied write is not “verified.” And a tool should not get to skip human confirmation just because a model asked nicely.
One-line pitch: give agents a small, guarded reporting API surface where writes need confirmation, results are read back, and receipts do not leak secrets or cell payloads.
This MCP server was built around that failure mode from government financial reporting work in Workiva-shaped systems. The default path stays safe: three guarded tools up front; the full tool catalog stays behind an explicit unsafe opt-in.
You can run the full path without Workiva credentials. The included mock covers the confirmation gate, rate-limit retry, asynchronous operation polling, readback, and receipt creation in under a minute.
Provenance. Sanitized public extract published August 2026; git history is publication history, not the original development timeline. Riverton demo and organizations are fictional — no client data, credentials, or private history appear here.

$ pip install -e . && workiva-mcp-demo
=== 5. Attempt the write WITHOUT confirm_write (contract blocks it) ===
{"error": "Tool requires confirmation: workiva_write_verified",
"requires_confirmation": true, "risk": "write", ...}
=== 6. Re-issue with confirm_write=true (verified write + readback) ===
{"status": "verified", "written_cells": 3, "mismatches": [],
"state": "verified", "receipt_uri": "workiva-receipt://2026...-workiva-write-verified-..."}
The problem it solves
Financial statements are unforgiving. A wrong number in a statement workbook is
not a harmless UI bug. The default server therefore puts every mutation behind
a reviewed tool contract and writes a redacted, create-once receipt. A tool that
promises readback must report either verified or verification_failed. If it
cannot tell, the dispatcher returns indeterminate.
What is implemented
- OAuth2 client credentials. The standard-library implementation caches a
token, refreshes it before expiry, and clears and retries once after a 401
(
auth.py,http_client.py). - The less tidy parts of an enterprise API. The client handles 202 polling
through both header and body operation locations,
@nextLinkandnext_urlpagination, parallel row-range reads, 429 backoff withRetry-After, and binary-safe xlsx/PDF exports (http_client.py,reapi/). - A write gate that is enforced in code. All 117 registered tools have a
reviewed
effect/confirmation/proofcontract. The compact dispatcher refuses tools with no contract, redacts mutation receipts, and treats missing readback asindeterminate(tool_contracts.py,compact_server.py,execution.py,receipt_store.py).
Architecture
flowchart LR
C[MCP client] --> CS["compact server (3 tools):<br/>search / call / batch"]
CS --> TC["tool contracts<br/>effect · confirmation · proof<br/>(fail-closed)"]
TC --> FS["raw implementation registry<br/>(117-tool catalog; not served by default)"]
FS --> T["tool families:<br/>cells · spreadsheets · documents ·<br/>files · linking · wdata · chains ·<br/>tasks · presentations · admin"]
T --> H["http client<br/>OAuth2 · 401 retry · 429 backoff · pagination"]
T -. selected mutation tools .-> EX["execution state machine<br/>202 ≠ applied ≠ verified"]
EX --> H
H --> W[(Workiva API)]
H -. WORKIVA_MCP_MOCK=1 .-> M[(FakeWorkiva<br/>in-memory)]
CS --> R["payload-redacted, create-once receipts +<br/>result artifacts<br/>(MCP resources)"]
The choices that matter:
- For tools that use the mutation state machine, a 202 with no operation
location is
indeterminate, never success.execution.pyaccepts injected request and polling functions, so this behavior is testable without credentials. Not every raw tool uses that state machine; the test map says which claims apply where. - The manifest, not a guess based on the tool name, controls dispatch.
scripts/generate_tool_contract_manifest.py --checkverifies exact coverage of the 117-tool registry. Name-based classification is only a drift warning. - A receipt records an attempt and its reported outcome. It is not readback.
proof: readbackrequires a deterministic verification result; otherwise the state isindeterminateand the receipt sayspending_readback. workiva-mcpandpython -m workiva_mcpstart the guarded three-tool server. Serving the raw catalog requires an explicit unsafe opt-in because direct calls bypass confirmation and receipt handling.- The three-tool front end reduces the listed tool count by about 97% and the
listing payload by more than 90%, as measured by
catalog_benchmark(). Large results becomeworkiva-result://…MCP resources instead of chat payloads. reapi/is an offline-only layer for typed 4xx/5xx errors, retries, polling, and receipt validation. It performs no I/O and requires no authentication.
Quickstart (no credentials needed)
git clone https://github.com/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcp
cd regulated-reporting-mcp
python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"
workiva-mcp-demo # end-to-end mock demo: list → read → gated write → verified readback
pytest # 126 credential-free tests
./scripts/proof.sh # lint + manifest + tests + full offline demo
The demo uses FakeWorkiva, an in-memory transport with a synthetic "City of Riverton" ACFR-style workbook. It runs the same gate, one-shot 429 retry, 202 polling, readback, and receipt code used by the real transport.
The demo's verified write stores its receipt under ~/.workiva_mcp/receipts/ (the same
write-once receipt store used against a real workspace). Set WORKIVA_MCP_RECEIPT_DIR to
redirect receipts to any other directory.
Use it from Claude (mock mode)
{
"mcpServers": {
"workiva": {
"command": "workiva-mcp",
"env": { "WORKIVA_MCP_MOCK": "1" }
}
}
}
Against a real Workiva workspace
Provide OAuth2 client credentials (created in Workiva under an org API grant) and drop the mock flag:
export WORKIVA_CLIENT_ID=...
export WORKIVA_CLIENT_SECRET=...
export WORKIVA_REGION=us # us | eu | apac
workiva-mcp # guarded 3-tool compact facade (default)
Credentials can also live in a .env file next to the package or pointed at with WORKIVA_ENV_FILE.
The raw 117-tool FastMCP server remains available for isolated development and for registry discovery inside the compact dispatcher. It bypasses confirmation and receipt handling, so it is deliberately awkward to start:
WORKIVA_MCP_CATALOG_MODE=full \
WORKIVA_MCP_ALLOW_UNGATED_FULL_CATALOG=1 \
workiva-mcp
Do not expose that mode to an autonomous or untrusted caller.
Tests
All 126 tests run without credentials. Transport tests use injected fakes;
tests/test_mock_mode.py drives the actual tool stack through FakeWorkiva.
Entrypoint tests check that compact mode is the default and that full-catalog
mode fails unless both unsafe flags are present. Contract tests cover formula
cells and exceptions after dispatch, and make sure a readback promise cannot be
reported as applied_unverified.
See how to check each claim and the security notes.
Status
This is my public, sanitized implementation of patterns I used while building and tying out annual comprehensive financial reports in Workiva. It is not a copy of a client repository. It contains no engagement-management code, and all workbook values, identifiers, credentials, and organizations are synthetic.
License
MIT — see LICENSE.
Built by Dave Bettner.
Установка Regulated Reporting
У этого сервера нет опубликованного пакета — он собирается из исходников. Открой репозиторий и следуй инструкции в README.
▸ github.com/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcpFAQ
Regulated Reporting MCP бесплатный?
Да, Regulated Reporting MCP бесплатный — установка в пару кликов через Unyly без оплаты.
Нужен ли API-ключ для Regulated Reporting?
Нет, Regulated Reporting работает без API-ключей и переменных окружения.
Regulated Reporting — hosted или self-hosted?
Доступен hosted-вариант: Unyly запускает сервер в облаке, локальная установка не обязательна.
Как установить Regulated Reporting в Claude Desktop, Claude Code или Cursor?
Открой Regulated Reporting на unyly.org, выбери вкладку своего клиента (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor) и нажми Install — конфиг сгенерируется автоматически, без правки JSON.
Похожие MCP
GitHub
PRs, issues, code search, CI status
автор: GitHubFilesystem
Secure file operations with configurable access controls.
Memory
Knowledge graph-based persistent memory system.
Template MCP Server
A CLI tool to create a new Model Context Protocol server project with TypeScript support, dual transport options, and an extensible structure
автор: mcpdotdirectAmap Maps Mcp Server
MCP server for using the AMap Maps API
автор: duxiaohuiSupabase
Database, auth and storage
автор: SupabaseEverything
Reference / test server with prompts, resources, and tools.
Git
Tools to read, search, and manipulate Git repositories.
Sequential Thinking
Dynamic and reflective problem-solving through thought sequences.
Time
Time and timezone conversion capabilities.
Compare Regulated Reporting with
Не уверен что выбрать?
Найди свой стек за 60 секунд
Автор?
Embed-бейдж для README
Похожее
Все в категории development
