eSportCalc FPS Sensitivity & Pro Settings Lab

convert_fps_sensitivity

Convert mouse sensitivity and DPI across 16 competitive FPS engines (valorant, cs2, bf6, rivals, deadlock, apex, ow2, cod, r6, finals, fortnite, pubg, rust, tarkov, quake, halo) with exact cm/360 physical distance.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from_game": "<from_game>",
      "to_game": "<to_game>",
      "sensitivity": "<sensitivity>"
    },
    "name": "convert_fps_sensitivity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to_dpi`	No	Mouse DPI in target game (default same as from_dpi)
`to_game`	Yes	Target game slug (e.g. bf6, cs2, valorant, rivals, deadlock)
`from_dpi`	No	Mouse DPI in source game (default 800)
`from_game`	Yes	Source game slug (e.g. valorant, cs2, bf6, apex, ow2)
`sensitivity`	Yes	In-game sensitivity in source game

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema — the result is expressed as an 'exact cm/360 physical distance', implying a deterministic read-only computation — but it says nothing about error behavior for invalid slugs, rounding/precision, or the full shape of the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical slug list is dense but genuinely informative. Slightly run-on, and the slug enumeration could arguably live in the schema instead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs well but leaves the return value only partially described (cm/360 is mentioned, the converted sensitivity value is not). An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict the response structure with confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by enumerating the full set of 16 valid game slugs, which the schema only samples with a handful of examples. It still doesn't clarify slug casing/normalization or how from_dpi/to_dpi defaults interact across games.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (convert) and resource (mouse sensitivity and DPI) and enumerates all 16 supported game slugs, so the tool's scope is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the lookup_pro_player_settings sibling, but the conversion-vs-lookup distinction is clear from the verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'convert ... across 16 competitive FPS engines' — an agent can infer you call it when translating a sensitivity between two titles. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing the source DPI), and no routing guidance toward the sibling lookup tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All eSportCalc FPS Sensitivity & Pro Settings Lab tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?