What did Hlido score agent-mq?

agent-mq scored 58/100 (FADING) in Hlido's independent, hands-on review.

How much does agent-mq cost?

Hlido recorded the pricing model as: Open source. Derived from evidence Hlido holds, not vendor-supplied; verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page.

Does any vendor pay Hlido for placement?

No. Hlido takes no money from the agents it rates — scoring weights stay private and the evidence behind every verdict is public.

agent-mq

Name: agent-mq review
Item: agent-mq
Rating: 58
Author: Hlido Editor

Infrastructure · tested 2026-08-21 · re-test due 2026-11-21 · by the Hlido desk, not the vendor

In short: An early (v0.2), MCP-native message queue that lets AI coding assistants talk to each other across tools — a clean idea with a thin, unproven surface.

4 PASS · 0 FAIL of 4 public-surface claims

Visit agent-mq → scorecard.json

Quick answer

agent-mq scores 58/100 (FADING) on Hlido’s independent, hands-on test (reviewed 2026-08-21). FADING (58) reflects a genuinely useful idea (cross-tool, MCP-native agent messaging) at a very early stage: v0.2.0, single-digit users, and a landing page that is mostly an install call-to-action with little evidence of Pricing: Open source (free entry point documented).

Hlido Editor · 2026-08-21

agent-mq is a small, honestly-presented message queue aimed at cross-tool agent communication: any MCP client (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex) can send and receive messages so agents running in different tools can coordinate. The premise is good and increasingly relevant — as people run several coding assistants at once, a shared, tool-agnostic message bus is a real gap. The surface shows the right primitives: seven MCP tools, a one-npx install, UUID-based namespace isolation (same token = same namespace, different tokens can't see each other), and self-hosting via Docker or a hosted server. What holds it back is maturity and evidence: it is version 0.2.0, the on-page counters are tiny (8 users, 25 agents, 24 messages), and the landing page is essentially an install pitch — there is no visible detail on delivery guarantees, ordering, persistence, or security beyond the namespace-isolation line. For an early adopter comfortable with a young MIT project this is worth a look; for anything load-bearing it is too early to trust from the public surface.

Why FADING

FADING (58) reflects a genuinely useful idea (cross-tool, MCP-native agent messaging) at a very early stage: v0.2.0, single-digit users, and a landing page that is mostly an install call-to-action with little evidence of delivery semantics, persistence or security. Not lower because the core primitives (7 MCP tools, UUID namespace isolation, self-hostable, MIT) are real and sensibly chosen. Not STEADY because nothing about reliability, scale or adoption is demonstrated, and the surface is too thin to verify the claims that would make it dependable.

Public-surface checklist

PASS Homepage loads (required)
PASS Primary value prop (required) — An early (v0.2), MCP-native message queue that lets AI coding assistants talk to
PASS Cta present
PASS Evidence or demo — 3 screenshot(s) captured

What we saw

3 screenshots captured by the Hlido engine during the reviewed run (run-01fb27d019accaed-agent-mq-com). Our own captures — not vendor marketing material.

agent-mq — run screenshot 1 (home.png) — home.png

agent-mq — run screenshot 2 (page_install_md.png) — page_install_md.png

agent-mq — run screenshot 3 (page_usage_md.png) — page_usage_md.png

What it does well

MCP-native cross-tool messaging: Claude Code, Cursor, Codex or anything that can run a bash command
UUID-based namespace isolation — same token shares a namespace, different tokens are mutually invisible
Self-hostable (Docker) as well as a hosted option; MIT-licensed
Low-friction adoption: seven MCP tools installed via a single npx command

What it fails at

Very early: v0.2.0 with tiny on-page usage counters (8 users / 25 agents / 24 messages)
No visible detail on delivery guarantees, message ordering, persistence, durability or throughput
Security posture beyond token-based namespace isolation is not described on the surface
Landing page is essentially an install pitch — little documentation or evidence of production use is exposed

Red flags

v0.2.0 with single-digit usage — treat as experimental; do not build anything you cannot afford to lose on it yet.
Delivery semantics, persistence and security are not evidenced on the public surface, so reliability is unknown.

Best for

Early adopters wiring up experiments where several AI coding assistants need to pass messages
Developers who want a self-hostable, MIT-licensed agent message bus and are comfortable with a v0.x tool
Prototyping multi-agent, multi-tool coordination without building queue infrastructure

Not recommended for

Any load-bearing or production workload needing delivery/ordering/durability guarantees
Teams with strict security/compliance requirements (isolation model is minimal on the surface)
Users who need proven scale, support or a stable API — this is pre-1.0

Pricing & access

ModelOpen source
Free entry pointYes — a free tier or open-source edition is documented

Derived from Hlido-held evidence only (engine checklist + editorial text); quotes are verbatim from the scorecard; not vendor-supplied; re-derived daily. Verify current prices on the vendor's pricing page. Last verified 2026-08-21.

Related agents

Agent relevance

CLI MCP Behavioral-testable

Agentic-Commerce Readiness 56/100 · INTEGRABLE

Independent readiness for agent delegation & transaction. How it’s scored · check live

MCP-native message queue with seven tools, installed via one npx command; any MCP-capable coding assistant can send/receive messages. Self-hostable, so behaviour is testable — but the tool is pre-1.0 (v0.2.0) and delivery semantics are undocumented on the surface.

Agent-friendly score: 7/10

Evidence

Message queue for AI coding assistants; cross-tool via MCP (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex) — source (2026-08-21) verified
Seven MCP tools, one npx command to install; self-hostable via Docker; MIT-licensed — source (2026-08-21) verified
UUID-based isolation: same token = same namespace, different tokens can't see each other — source (2026-08-21) verified
Version 0.2.0 with on-page counters of 8 users, 25 agents, 24 messages — source (2026-08-21) verified

scorecard.json · transparency passport · registry · methodology

More: compare agents · best of · developer tools · incident registry

Verdict by Hlido Editor, our automated editorial system · Method: public-surface-tier-1+editorial-narrative-v2 · Methodology version 2026.05 · Next review due 2026-11-21

How this page was produced. The scores, claim verdicts and evidence come from automated hands-on testing of the product’s public surface. The written analysis is drafted by an AI system, and pages publish without a person reviewing each one. Hlido publishes this record and answers for it — tell us if anything here is wrong and we will correct it.

Embed this trust badge

Live, always-current independent score — free to embed on your site or README. No vendor pays for placement.

Markdown

[![Hlido trust score](https://hlido.eu/badge/bababoi-bibilabu-agent-mq.svg)](https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=bababoi-bibilabu-agent-mq)

HTML

<a href="https://hlido.eu/check/?agent=bababoi-bibilabu-agent-mq"><img src="https://hlido.eu/badge/bababoi-bibilabu-agent-mq.svg" alt="Hlido trust score"></a>