Since you are a tutor, any knowledge is always for a good cause. So I will provide some bounds for the MLE.
We have arrived at
$$(1-\lambda x_{(n)})e^{\lambda x_{(n)} } + \lambda n x_{(n)} - 1 = 0$$
with $x_{(n)}\equiv M_n$. So
$$(1-\hat \lambda x_{(n)})e^{\hat \lambda x_{(n)}} = 1-\hat \lambda x_{(n)}n $$
Assume first that $1-\hat \lambda x_{(n)} >0$. Then we must also have $1-\hat \lambda x_{(n)}n>0$ since the exponential is always positive. Moreover since $x_{(n)}, \hat \lambda > 0\Rightarrow e^{\hat \lambda x_{(n)}}>1$. Therefore we should have
$$\frac {1-\hat \lambda x_{(n)}n}{1-\hat \lambda x_{(n)}}>1 \Rightarrow \hat \lambda x_{(n)}>\hat \lambda x_{(n)}n$$
which is impossible. Therefore we conclude that
$$\hat \lambda >\frac 1{x_{(n)}},\;\; \hat \lambda = \frac c{x_{(n)}}, \;\; c>1$$
Inserting into the log-likelihood we get
$$\ell(\hat\lambda(c)\mid x_{(n)}) = \log \frac c{x_{(n)}} + \log n - \frac c{x_{(n)}} x_{(n)} + (n-1) \log (1 - e^{-\frac c{x_{(n)}} x_{(n)}})$$
$$= \log \frac n{x_{(n)}} + \log c - c + (n-1) \log (1 - e^{-c})$$
We want to maximize this likelihood with respect to $c$. Its 1st derivative is
$$\frac{d\ell}{dc}=\frac 1c -1 +(n-1)\frac 1{e^{c}-1}$$
Setting this equal to zero, we require that
$$e^{c}-1 - c\left(e^{c}-1\right)+(n-1)c =0$$
$$\Rightarrow \left(n-e^c\right)c = 1-e^c$$
Since $c>1$ the RHS is negative. Therefore we must also have $n-e^c <0 \Rightarrow c > \ln n$. For $n\ge 3$ this provides a tighter lower bound for the MLE, but it doesn't cover the $n=2$ case, so
$$\hat \lambda > \max \left\{\frac 1{x_{(n)}}, \frac {\ln n}{x_{(n)}}\right\}$$
Moreover (for $n\ge 3$) rearranging the 1st-order condition we have that
$$c= \frac{e^c-1}{e^c-n} > \ln n \Rightarrow e^c -1 > e^c\ln n -n\ln n $$
$$\Rightarrow n\ln n-1>e^c(\ln n -1) \Rightarrow c< \ln{\left[\frac{n\ln n-1}{\ln n -1}\right]}$$
So for $n\ge 3$ we have that
$$\frac 1{x_{(n)}}\ln n < \hat \lambda < \frac 1{x_{(n)}}\ln{\left[\frac{n\ln n-1}{\ln n -1}\right]}$$
This is a narrow interval, especially if $x_{(n)}\ge 1$. For example (truncated at 3d digit )
$$\begin{align}
n=10 & &\frac 1{x_{(n)}}2.302 < \hat \lambda < \frac 1{x_{(n)}}2.827\\
n=100 & & \frac 1{x_{(n)}}4.605 < \hat \lambda < \frac 1{x_{(n)}}4.847\\
n=1000 & & \frac 1{x_{(n)}}6.907 < \hat \lambda < \frac 1{x_{(n)}}7.063\\
n=10000 & & \frac 1{x_{(n)}}9.210< \hat \lambda < \frac 1{x_{(n)}}9.325\\
\end{align}$$
Numerical examples indicate that the MLE tends to be equal to the upper bound, up to second decimal digit.
ADDENDUM: A CLOSED FORM EXPRESSION
This is just an approximate solution (it only approximately maximizes the likelihood), but here it is:
manipulating the 1st-order condition we want to have
$$\lambda = \frac 1{x_{(n)}}\ln \left[\frac {\lambda x_{(n)}n -1}{\lambda x_{(n)} -1}\right]$$
Now, one can show (see for example here) that
$$E[X_{(n)}] = \frac {H_n}{\lambda},\;\; H_n = \sum_{k=1}^n\frac 1k$$
Solving for $\lambda$ and inserting into the RHS of the implicit 1st-order condition, we obtain
$$\lambda = \frac 1{x_{(n)}}\ln \left[\frac {nH_n\frac {x_{(n)}}{E[X_{(n)}]} -1}{ H_n\frac {x_{(n)}}{E[X_{(n)}]} -1}\right]$$
We want an estimate of $\lambda$, given that $X_{(n)}=x_{(n)}$, $\hat \lambda \mid \{X_{(n)}=x_{(n)}\}$. But in such a case, we also have $E[X_{(n)}\mid \{X_{(n)}=x_{(n)}\}] =x_{(n)}$. this simplifies the expression and we obtain
$$\hat \lambda = \frac 1{x_{(n)}}\ln \left[\frac {nH_n -1}{ H_n -1}\right]$$
One can verify that this closed form expression stays close to the upper bound derived previously, but a bit less than the actual (numerically obtained) MLE.
This "random variable" is similar to the idea of having a flat prior on the entire real line (your second example).
To show that there can be no random variable $X$ such that $P(X=q)=c$ for all $q\in \mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1]$ and constant $c$, we use the $\sigma$-additive property of random variables: the countable union of disjoint events has probability equal to the (possibly infinite) sum of probabilites of the events. So, if $c=0$, the probability $P(X\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1])=0$, as it is the sum of countably many zeros. If $c>0$, then $P(X\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1])=\infty$. However a proper random variable taking values in $\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1]$ must be such that $P(X\in\mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1])=1$, so there is no such random variable.
The key here, as you may already be aware, is that if the space is composed of finitely many points, then we can use $c>0$ and have no problem with the sum, and if the space has uncountably many points you can have $c=0$ and the $\sigma$-additivity isn't violated when integrating over the space because it is a statement about countable things. However you're going to problems when you want a uniform distribution over a countably infinite set.
In the context of a Bayesian prior, though, you can of course just say that $P(X=q)\propto 1$ for all $q\in \mathbb{Q}\cap[0,1]$ if you're willing to use the improper prior.
Best Answer
\begin{align} F(y) &= P(Y<y) \\ &= P(e^{aX}<y) \\ &= P(aX<\ln y) \\ &= P(X<\frac{\ln y}{a}) \\ &=\int_0^{\frac{\ln y}{a}}\lambda e^{-\lambda y}dy \\ &= \left.-e^{-\lambda y}\right\vert_{0}^{\frac{\ln y}{a}}\\ &=1-y^{-\lambda/a} \end{align}
We take derivatives of both side:
$$f(y)=\frac{\lambda}{a}y^{-\lambda/a -1}$$
A Beta distribution when $0<y<1$ with $\beta=1$?