一个用于解析和验证 NACHA/ACH 文件的 MCP（模型上下文协议）服务器。
Node.js 18 或更高版本
npm
Related MCP server: @validatefin/mcp
git clone https://github.com/msuresh007/nacha-mcp.git
cd nacha-mcp
npm install
npm run build此操作会将 src/ 编译到 dist/。在拉取任何更新后，请重新运行 npm run build。
examples/sample.ach 是一个算术上有效的小样例文件。构建完成后，你可以在没有 MCP 客户端的情况下，直接从命令行运行任一工具，以确认一切正常：
node -e "const {analyzeNachaFile}=require('./dist/analyze.js');const fs=require('fs');console.log(JSON.stringify(analyzeNachaFile(fs.readFileSync('examples/sample.ach','utf-8')),null,2))"你应该会看到 "valid": true，同时 issues 数组为空，并且包括一个批次和一个条目。
parse_nacha_file — 解析给定路径的 NACHA 文件，输出完整的结构化 JSON 数据：文件头、批次（批头、带附加记录的条目、批控制）以及文件控制。
summarize_nacha_file — 解析 NACHA 文件并返回简洁摘要：批次数、总条目数、借方/贷方总额、出现的 SEC 代码以及验证问题。
这两个工具都只接收一个输入参数 file_path，即文件在磁盘上的绝对路径。
解析包括：
结构验证（记录长度、记录类型顺序、批头/批控制配对）。
逻辑验证 — 根据实际条目重新计算条目哈希、借贷总额及条目/附加条目数量，并与所声称的批控制（Batch Control）和文件控制（File Control）值进行交叉校验。不一致的内容会作为验证问题报告，而不被静默接受。
IAT（International ACH Transaction）批次及附加记录类型代码 10-18。
npm start服务器通过 stdio 使用 MCP 协议进行通信；不适合单独交互运行。请通过下文描述的 MCP 客户端使用它。
在完成构建后，从项目目录执行：
claude mcp add nacha -- node "$(pwd)/dist/index.js"（在 Windows PowerShell 中： claude mcp add nacha -- node "$PWD\dist\index.js"）
在你所要使用的项目中，创建 .vscode/mcp.json（如果已存在，则向其中添加），并使用连接到你本地仓库的绝对路径替换其中的路径：
{
"servers": {
"nacha": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/nacha-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}或者，也可以从控制面板（Ctrl+Shift+P / ⇧⌘P）运行 MCP: Add Server，选择 Workspace，并使用相同的参数指向 node —— VS Code 将为你写入相同的 .vscode/mcp.json。
保存后，打开 Copilot Chat，切换到 Agent 模式，parse_nacha_file / summarize_nacha_file 工具便可使用（VS Code 会按需启动服务器）。
在客户端的 MCP 服务器配置（例如 claude_desktop_config.json）中添加一个条目，将路径改为你本地仓库的绝对路径：
{
"mcpServers": {
"nacha": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/nacha-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}配置添加完成后，重新启动客户端。
src/constants.ts — SEC 代码、交易代码、ISO 国家/地区/货币查询。
src/format.ts — 金额 / 日期 / 时间字段解析。
src/parser.ts — 结构验证与记录解析（文件 / 批次 / 条目 / 附加上下文）。
src/validate.ts — 算术验证（哈希、总额、计数）。
src/analyze.ts — 结合解析和算术验证。
src/summarize.ts — 精简摘要视图。
src/index.ts — MCP 服务器及工具注册。
项目的设计上不包含单元测试，以保持它成为一个小型、易于审计的服务器。
MIT — 参见 LICENSE
Parses a NACHA (ACH) fixed-width file into structured JSON: file header, batches (header, entries with addenda, control), and file control. Validates record structure and cross-checks entry hashes, debit/credit totals, and record counts, reporting any mismatches as issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path to the NACHA/ACH file on disk. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses validation behavior well: cross-checking record counts, hashes, and debit/credit totals, and reporting mismatches as 'issues'. It could add a bit more about error behavior for unreadable or malformed files, but the existing detail is substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, each carrying essential information: the first defines the output structure, the second the validation behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it lists the CSV JSON composition, the validation checks, and the reporting of issues. An agent can confidently call the tool knowing what input to provide and what to do with the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter and its schema description is 100% complete ('Absolute path to the NACHA/ACH file on disk'). The tool description does not add anything about the parameter beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Parses') and resource ('NACHA/ACH fixed-width file') and names the output structure explicitly (file header, batches, control). It also distinguishes itself from sibling summarize_nacha_file by emphasizing structured JSON extraction plus validation rather than summarization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the natural use case—get structured JSON from a NACHA file—but it does not explicitly contrast with summarize_nacha_file or state when the agent should choose parsing over summarizing. Usage context is implied clearly by the verb and output, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Parses a NACHA (ACH) file and returns a condensed summary: batch count, total entries, total debit/credit amounts, SEC codes present, and validation issues, without dumping every field of every record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path to the NACHA/ACH file on disk. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full safety burden. It clearly states it parses and returns a summary, implying a read-only operation, and notes that it reports validation issues. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or potential error conditions on malformed files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates specific output elements. No wasted words, and the critical exclusion is stated compactly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies its return content with field-level detail. It falls just short of being fully complete by not describing the result structure or behavior on invalid files, though those gaps are minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single file_path parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is fine at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Parses... and returns') and explicitly lists the summary contents: batch count, total entries, total debit/credit amounts, SEC codes, and validation issues. The phrase 'without dumping every field of every record' clearly differentiates it from the sibling parse_nacha_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly frames when to use this tool: when a condensed summary is desired rather than full record-level detail. The contrast 'without dumping every field' effectively communicates the when-not and implicitly routes to the sibling for detailed extraction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0parse_nacha_filesummarize_nacha_fileScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly different outputs—one returns the full parsed structure and one returns a condensed summary—so an agent can pick based on response size. There is mild overlap because both parse the file, but the naming and descriptions sufficiently differentiate their purposes.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun_file pattern: parse_nacha_file and summarize_nacha_file. The naming is predictable, consistent, and accurately reflects the intent of each tool.
With only two tools, the server is intentionally narrow, but both tools serve a clear and distinct purpose for NACHA file handling. The count is slightly thin but not inappropriate given the focused read-only scope.
For a server focused on reading and validating NACHA files, the surface covers the essential workflows: full detailed parsing and condensed summarization. It could benefit from additional capabilities like file creation or export, but those seem outside its apparent scope.
Parse WebVTT, SRT, or TTML for conformance, timing, overlaps, line length, and reading speed.
Turn bank statement PDFs into categorized, balance-checked transactions and reports.
Turn bank statement PDFs, CSVs, XLSX and OFX into categorised transactions plus a summary.
Validate HMDA LAR files against CFPB edit checks for community banks and credit unions.