Hey Rafael - This is not currently possible but I totally I agree it would be useful to be able to customize the response thereby allowing more services to integrate with Airtable through the Automations incoming webhook triggers.
Out of curiosity, which part of Twilio are you trying to integrate with the webhook trigger? I have had success receiving webhook payloads coming from Twilio upon a SMS being sent to my number; configuration screenshot below 
Hey Rafael - This is not currently possible but I totally I agree it would be useful to be able to customize the response thereby allowing more services to integrate with Airtable through the Automations incoming webhook triggers.
Out of curiosity, which part of Twilio are you trying to integrate with the webhook trigger? I have had success receiving webhook payloads coming from Twilio upon a SMS being sent to my number; configuration screenshot below
Hi Mark, thanks for your prompt reply.
It is the Messaging Service, as you can see below.
So there’s currently no workaround? The integration works fine, but Twilio raises an error, which is very unfortunate as it will bloat my application with non-applicable errors and increase the likelihood that I miss a real error.
Hi Mark, thanks for your prompt reply.
It is the Messaging Service, as you can see below.
So there’s currently no workaround? The integration works fine, but Twilio raises an error, which is very unfortunate as it will bloat my application with non-applicable errors and increase the likelihood that I miss a real error.
Ah, I see. And yes, to confirm, there is no way to customize or “silence” the JSON returned by the incoming webhook trigger.
If you email support@airtable.com and mention your feedback, the team can make sure it is properly routed!
In the meantime: I had this same problem, and I had to use Make.com to return a silent response to Twilio.
Make offers full integration with Airtable, and they offer a customizable “webhook response” module:
Hi Mark, thanks for your prompt reply.
It is the Messaging Service, as you can see below.
So there’s currently no workaround? The integration works fine, but Twilio raises an error, which is very unfortunate as it will bloat my application with non-applicable errors and increase the likelihood that I miss a real error.
Well, there is, but it defeats the entire purpose of an elegant webhook architecture. Make (as @ScottWorld points out) can serve as a proxy buffer and a proxy is the only approach I’m aware of that will help with your Twilio integration. I tend to proxy these types of issues with Autocode or Firebase Cloud Functions.
By the way, I forgot to include a screenshot of how to set this up in Make.com. It’s very easy:
Well, there is, but it defeats the entire purpose of an elegant webhook architecture. Make (as @ScottWorld points out) can serve as a proxy buffer and a proxy is the only approach I’m aware of that will help with your Twilio integration. I tend to proxy these types of issues with Autocode or Firebase Cloud Functions.
Yes, you’re right. I ended up setting up an endpoint in my web server that will listen to Twilio’s webhook and then make the request to Airtable, returning an empty response.
As you said, kind of defeats the purpose of a no-code solution, but it works for now. I do hope that Airtable keeps improving its webhook functionality, which is already great but could be better with simple tweaks.
Thank you all.
